Myths & Facts Online

Current Controversies

By Mitchell G. Bard

This section will be devoted to addressing some of the new myths as they arise. They will also be cross-referenced in the appropriate sections of M&F.

MYTH

"The outbreak of violence in late 2000, dubbed by Arabs the al-Aksa intifada, was provoked by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."

FACT

To believe Palestinian spokesmen, the violence was caused by the desecration of a Muslim holy place – Haram al-Sharif – by Likud leader Ariel Sharon and the “thousands of Israeli soldiers” who accompanied him. The violence was carried out through unprovoked attacks by Israeli forces, which invaded Palestinian-controlled territories and “massacred” defenseless Palestinian civilians, who merely threw stones in self-defense. The only way to stop the violence, then, is for Israel to remove its troops from the Palestinian areas and cease the fire. The truth is dramatically different.

Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, admitted months after Sharon's visit that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's "provocation." "It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former US president and rejected the American conditions."¹

The violence started before Sharon's September 28, 2000, visit to the Temple Mount. The day before, for example, an Israeli soldier was killed at the Netzarim Junction. The soldier was killed after the explosion of a roadside bomb. The next day in the West Bank city of Kalkilya, a Palestinian police officer working with Israeli police on a joint patrol opened fire and killed his Israeli counterpart.

 

“The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aqsa Intifada.’”  — Conclusion of the Mitchell Report,  (May 4, 2001)

Official Palestinian Authority (PA) media exhorted the Palestinians to violence. On Sept. 29, the Voice of Palestine, the PA's official radio station sent out calls "to all Palestinians to come and defend the al-Aksa mosque." The PA closed its schools and bused Palestinian students to the Temple Mount to participate in the organized riots.

Just prior to Rosh Hashanah (Sept. 30), the Jewish New Year, when hundreds of Israelis were worshipping at the Western Wall, thousands of Arabs began throwing bricks and rocks at Israeli police and Jewish worshippers. Rioting then spread to towns and villages throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Internal Security Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami permitted Sharon to go to the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest place, which Muslims have renamed Haram al-Sharif and regard as Islam’s third holiest place – only after calling Palestinian security chief Jabril Rajoub and receiving his assurance that if Sharon did not enter the mosques, no problems would arise. The need to protect Sharon – with several hundred policemen, not thousands of soldiers – arose when Rajoub later said that the Palestinian police would do nothing to prevent violence during the visit. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount ended peacefully, with serious rioting erupting more than 24 hours later.

The real desecration of holy places was perpetrated by Palestinians, not Israelis. Palestinian mobs destroyed a Jewish shrine – Joseph’s Tomb – tearing up and burning Jewish prayer books. They stoned worshipers at the Western Wall and attacked Rachel’s Tomb with firebombs and automatic weapons.

None of the violent attacks were initiated by Israeli security forces, which in all cases responded to Palestinian violence that went well beyond stone throwing. It included massive attacks with automatic weapons and lynchings of Israeli soldiers. Most armed attackers were members of the Tanzim – Arafat’s own militia.

The disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties was the inevitable result of an irregular, ill-trained militia attacking a well-trained regular army, and the Tanzim’s frequent use of Palestinian civilians shields for its attacks.

Since all attacks were initiated by Palestinians under Arafat’s orders, only Arafat has the power to end the violence. Israel and the United States have called on him to do so and renew the peace process.

MYTH

"Violence is an understandable and legitimate reaction to Israel's policies."

FACT

The basis of the peace process is that disputes should be resolved through negotiations. One of the conditions Israel set before agreeing to negotiate with the PLO was that the organization renounce terrorism. It formally did so; however, the PLO and other Palestinian groups and individuals have consistently resorted to violence since the Oslo process began in 1993. It has not mattered if Israel made concessions or refused to do so, heinous attacks have still been committed by Palestinians. In some instances the atrocities have been perpetrated because of alleged mistreatment or by groups interested in sabotaging negotiations, but the Palestinian Authority, which has a 40,000-person police force (larger than allowed under the peace agreements) and multiple intelligence agencies, must be held responsible for keeping the peace.

Since the Signing of the Declaration of Principles³
(September 13, 1993-August 11, 1999)

MYTH

"The al-Aksa uprising does not hurt Israel because the  demonstrations are limited to confrontations  with Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

FACT

Palestinian violence in the West Bank and Gaza has taken the lives of numerous civilians and soldiers. In addition, terrorists acting in the name of the uprising have carried out heinous attacks inside Israel. The violence also has collateral impact on the Israeli psyche, military and economy.

Israelis must now be careful traveling through many parts of Israel and the territories that should be safe. Palestinians have also sniped at Jews in cities such as Gilo that are outside the territories. The violence has severely undermined the faith Israelis had in the prospect for peace with the Palestinians if they made territorial concessions.

The uprising also affects military readiness because troops must be diverted from training and preparing against threats from hostile nations and instead must focus on quelling riots and fighting terrorism.

Finally, the violence has caused a sharp reduction in tourism and damaged related industries. Some 64,000 Israelis have lost their jobs because of the Palestinian uprising.⁴

It is not only the Israelis who suffer. The loss of tourism also hurts Palestinians. The number of visitors, for example, who normally visit Bethlehem for Christmas was significantly lower. The same is true in other pilgrimage sites in the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian shopkeepers in places like the Old City are also affected by the drop in tourism. Terrorist attacks also force Israel to periodically prohibit Palestinian workers from entering Israel hurting individuals trying to make a living and provide for their families.

MYTH

"Israel is trying to economically cripple the Palestinians by withholding tax monies due to the Palestinian Authority."

FACT

At the beginning of 2001, Israel decided to withhold more than $50 million in taxes it owed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in response to the ongoing violence. U.S. officials and others have pressured Israel to transfer the money because the PA is in dire financial straits and cannot pay many of its bills. Israel recognizes that its action is harsh, but believes it is necessary to demonstrate to the Palestinians that the inability or unwillingness to stop the violence has a cost. Israel must use whatever leverage it can to protect its citizens and this economic sanction is a milder response than a military one.

It is also important to note that while Israel's action is being blamed for the sorry state of the Palestinian economy the truth is the Arab countries suspended the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars, collected as donations, meant for the PA. The justification for the Arab states' action is their concern that the funds will be embezzled and encourage further corruption in the PA.⁵

MYTH

"The Temple Mount has always been a Muslim holy place and Judaism has no connection to the site."

FACT

In January 2001, Palestinian Authority Mufti 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." This view is contradicted by a book entitled A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, published by the Supreme Moslem Council in 1930. The Council, the supreme Moslem body 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 Wakf 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."⁶

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 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 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.

Strictly observant Jews do not visit the Temple Mount for fear of accidentally treading upon the Holy of Holies, which housed the original Ark of the Covenant, since its exact location on the Mount is unknown. Other Jews and non-Muslims do visit with the full knowledge and consent of the Waqf, respecting prayer schedules and dress codes and providing no threat of “desecration” to the site.

MYTH

"Israel should not be allowed to control the Temple Mount because it denies Muslims access to their holy places."

FACT

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 Temple Mount to ensure access for people of all religions.

The only times Israel has prevented any Muslims from going to the Temple Mount were during periods of high tension when the threat of violence necessitated restrictions on the number of people allowed into the area. These measures were taken to protect worshippers of all faiths and the shrines in the Old City. They usually have only lasted for a day or two.

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 is believed to be causing irreparable damage to archaeological remains from the First and Second Temple periods. Israeli archaeologists charge that during extensive construction work, thousands of tons of gravel –– which could contain important relics –– have been removed from the Mount and discarded in the trash. Experts say that even if artifacts are not destroyed they will be rendered archaeologically useless because the Palestinian construction workers are  mixing finds from diverse periods when they scoop up earth with bulldozers.⁷

Give the sensitivity of the Temple Mount and the tensions already existing between Israelis and Palestinians over Jerusalem, the Israeli government has chosen not interfered in the Waqf’s activities. Meanwhile, the destruction of the past continues.

MYTH

"Israel uses excessive force to respond to children who are just throwing stones."

FACT

Palestinians, young and old, attack Israeli civilians and soldiers with a variety of weapons. When they throw stones, they are not pebbles, but large rocks that can and do cause serious injuries. Imagine yourself being hit in the head with a rock. Typically, Israeli troops coming under attack have numbered fewer than 20 while their assailants have numbered in the hundreds and are armed with stones, Molotov cocktails, pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, hand grenades and explosives. Moreover, mixed among rock throwers have been Palestinians, often policemen, armed with guns. Faced with an angry, violent mob, Israeli police and soldiers often have no choice but to defend themselves by firing rubber bullets and, in life-threatening situations, live ammunition.

The use of live-fire by the Palestinians has effectively meant that Israeli forces have had to remain at some distance from those initiating the violence. In addition, the threat of force against Israelis has been a threat of lethal force. Both factors have inhibited the use of traditional methods of riot control.

According to the rules of engagement for Israeli troops in the territories, the use of weapons is authorized solely in life-threatening situations or, subject to significant limitations, in the exercise of the arrest of an individual suspected of having committed a grave security offense. Given the reality of the circumstances faced by Israeli troops, clarifications were made with regard to the definition of life threatening situations. In all cases, IDF activities have been governed by an overriding policy of restraint, the requirement of proportionality and the necessity to take all possible measures to prevent harm to innocent civilians.

The Palestinians have also been escalating their violent attacks against Israelis by using mortars and anti-tank missiles illegally smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have fired mortar shells into Jewish communities in Gaza, including Netzarim, while IDF reports indicate that anti-tank missiles have been fired at Israeli forces in Gaza twice.

IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz told visiting American Jewish leaders on Feb. 28, 2001, that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been stockpiling weapons smuggled into Gaza by sea and underground tunnels linked to Egypt.

The possession and use of these weapons and other arms by the Palestinians violates commitments they made in various agreements with Israel. Under the Oslo accords, the only weapons allowed in the Palestinian-controlled areas are handguns, rifles and machine guns, and these are to be held only by PA security officers. The recent violence makes clear that in addition to the police, Palestinian civilians and members of militias, such as the Tanzim, also are in possession of such weapons.⁹

The number of Palestinian casualties in clashes is regrettable, but it is important to remember that no Palestinian would be in any danger or risk injury if they were not attacking Israelis. Furthermore, if children were in school or at home with their families, rather than throwing rocks in the streets, they too would have nothing to worry about. Also, while the number of Palestinians who have died is greater, that should not minimize the traumatic loss of life on the Israeli side. From September 29, 2000, through April 25, 2001, 74 Israeli Jews, including 43 civilians, were killed by Palestinians.¹⁰

It is also worth considering how police in the United States and other nations react to mob violence. Abuses do sometimes occur when police are under attack, but no one expects them to stand by and allow their lives to be put in danger to assuage international opinion. It is only Israelis who are denied their right to self-defense or see it used as a propaganda weapon against them.

MYTH

"The Palestinian Authority is acting to prevent violence by arresting terrorists and confiscating illegal weapons."

FACT

At times cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces has been good, and Israel has publicly commended the Palestinian Authority (PA). More often, however, the PA has failed to take adequate measures to prevent attacks against Israelis. While many terrorists have been apprehended, they are usually released shortly afterward and, at least some of them have subsequently been involved in assaults against Jews.

The PA is also filled with illegal weapons, including machine guns, hand grenades, explosives and mortars. Despite repeated promises, no effort has been made to collect the weapons. On the contrary, the PA has been actively stockpiling them. This is a serious violation of the agreements signed with Israel, one that provokes distrust and threatens Israeli security.

MYTH

"The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights Report documents Israel's abuse of Palestinians."

FACT

It is true the State Department criticized Israel for some abuses, but the report failed to put the actions in context. The reality is that Israel is fighting a war with the Palestinians and finds itself under daily attack. Abuses happen sometimes in the United States, which is not at war, when police in their efforts to prevent crime occasionally act with excessive force.

Israel shares with the United States the democratic principles and morality that require such instances to be investigated and, when warranted, punished. A number of human rights organizations within Israel closely monitor incidents and have no hesitancy about publicizing their concerns.

Israel's willingness to engage in self-examination and criticism is in stark contrast to the actions of the Palestinians and other Arab governments, which engage in systematic abuses of human rights, have no domestic human rights monitors and are typically not subject to investigation by anyone. In fact, one reason Israel's human rights record gets so much attention is that it is a democracy with a free press that allows the world to see it's actions. In the closed monarchical and dictatorial Arab world, however, most abuses go unreported and unnoticed.

MYTH

"The shooting of a child being protected by his father shown on TV proves Israel does not hesitate to kill innocent Palestinian children."

FACT

A sketch on an IDF aerial photo describing the exchange of fire at the Netzarim junction in which Mohammed Aldura, 12, was killed. The sketch marks the location of the father and son who took cover adjacent to a Palestinian shooting position at the junction. After Palestinian policemen fired from this position and around it toward an IDF position opposite, IDF soldiers returned fire toward the sources of the shooting and during the exchanges of fire the Palestinian child was apparently hit and killed. Conflicting stories have been given as to why the father and child were in the vicinity during the incident.

An IDF investigation of the incident released November 27, 2000, found that Aldura was most likely killed by a Palestinian policeman and not by IDF fire. The investigation's results are not conclusive, but "the possibility that they were shot by Palestinians is higher than that they were shot by Israelis," according to Maj.-Gen. Yomtov Samia.

Samia said the conclusions were based on an in-depth analysis of all information the IDF could gather about the incident; however, he added that a number of questions about the incident remain, including why Aldura and his father Jamal, 37, of El-Bureij refugee camp in Gaza, came to the intersection when there already had been shooting there for several hours and why they did not flee, as many others did.¹²

MYTH

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

FACT

Israel could not simply agree to allow all Palestinians to return, but consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. David Ben­Gurion 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."¹³

The implied danger of repatriation 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.¹⁴

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.

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.

It is also important to realize that most Palestinians now live in historic Palestine, that is, the 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

"Israel has no right to build homes in Har Homa because it is part of Arab East Jerusalem and is yet another settlement project that will impede peace."

FACT

Building in Har Homa represents the last phase of a larger municipal housing plan for the city of Jerusalem begun in 1968. The entire area of Har Homa is less than 460 acres. When the project began, it was completely vacant and is not adjacent to any Arab population.

The original decision to go forward with construction on Har Homa was made by Labor Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1996; construction did not proceed because the issue was tied up in Israeli courts. The Israeli Supreme Court rejected appeals by both Jewish and Arab landowners and approved the expropriation of land for the project. The expropriations were undertaken on the basis of the fundamental common law principle of eminent domain, allowing governments to expropriate land from private owners for public use. Most of the land — 75% — was expropriated from Jews.

The construction plan was approved by the Netanyahu government after the Court's ruling to address a severe housing shortage among both Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem. The project will ultimately include 6,500 housing units, as well as schools, parks, public buildings and commercial and industrial zones. Construction plans for 3,015 housing units in 10 Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be implemented simultaneously with the Har Homa project.

Nothing in any of the agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israelis preclude building in Jerusalem. Both Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres made clear they had no intention of refraining from building in Jerusalem and never slowed down the pace of construction in the capital. Different sides of the Israeli political spectrum, including many Labor Party leaders, urged the Netanyahu government to proceed with the Har Homa project.

Contrary to Palestinian claims, Har Homa is not in "traditional Arab East Jerusalem." It is neither "Arab" (most of the land was expropriated from Jews) nor "East" (it is in southern Jerusalem).

The Palestinians have also insisted that Har Homa will isolate them from the West Bank or limit their access to Jerusalem. When Har Homa is completed, however, considerable areas of territorial continuity between the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem and the Palestinian areas of the West Bank will remain. Palestinians will also have the same access to Jerusalem they presently enjoy.

MYTH

"Israeli attacks against Lebanon demonstrate Israel's aggression and determination to hold onto Lebanese territory."

FACT

The United Nations verified that Israel fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanon; however, Hizbullah, armed with a great assortment of weapons, and deployed along the international border, has repeatedly attacked Israeli targets, ambushed and kidnapped soldiers and harassed Jewish villagers in northern Israel with the aim of provoking an escalation in hostilities.

Israel has repeatedly requested, with the backing of the UN and United States, that Lebanon deploy its army in the south and disarm the guerrillas. Given that Syria effectively controls Lebanon, Israel holds both governments responsible for the failure to prevent Hizballah's provocations. Their failure to do so has forced Israel to take preemptive and retaliatory measures to protect its citizens and soldiers.

MYTH

“The Mitchell Report made clear that Israeli settlement policy is as much to blame for the breakdown of the peace process as Palestinian violence and that a settlement freeze is necessary to end the violence.”

FACT

In November 2000, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was appointed to lead a fact-finding committee to investigate the cause of the "al-Aksa Intifada" 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 want to go further and make it clear that we do not in any way equate Palestinian terrorism with Israeli settlement activity, 'seemingly' or otherwise."

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."¹⁷

MYTH

“Israel's use of F-16 fighter jets typifies the disproportionate use of force applied by Israel against innocent Palestinian civilians.”

FACT

How do you determine the proportionate use of military force? When Palestinian terrorists plant bombs at Israeli shopping malls and kill and wound dozens of civilians, would the proportionate response be for Israelis to plant bombs in Palestinian malls? No one in Israel believes this would be a legitimate use of force. Thus, Israel is left with the need to take measured action against specific targets in an effort to either deter Palestinian violence or stop it.

In the specific case of Israel's use of F-16s, Major General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Operation Branch, explained Israel's reasoning:

I know that the F-16 was not designed to attack targets in Palestinian cities. But we have to remember that although we use this kind of aircraft, it is still very accurate. All the targets were military targets....it was rather a tactical decision, simply because the targets were big enough, were strong enough or solid enough that attack helicopters were considered not effective enough to penetrate or to hit these specific targets. So when we decided or we chose these targets then we were looking for the best ammunition for them and in this specific case it was F-16. It doesn't imply that this is a new stage and from now on the only way that we are going to deploy our forces or our aviation is only by F-16s. Actually we see it as something that will not be used in a very open way.¹⁸

Israel's deployment of the fighters came after 88 Israelis had already lost their lives, including 55 civilians. The civilians were not killed accidentally, they were deliberately targeted. In the previous two-and-a-half months, Palestinians had attempted to place 28 bombs inside Israel. The F-16 attack came in direct response to one that exploded at a Netanya shopping mall May 18, 2001, killing five Israelis.

A month before deploying the F-16s, the U.S. State Department accused Israel of an "excessive and disproportionate" response to Palestinian violence when it launched air strikes against targets in Gaza, even though the spokesman admitted the retaliation was "precipitated by the provocative Palestinian mortar attacks on Israel."¹⁹ The U.S. position is ironic given the so-called Powell Doctrine enunciated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, which holds that "America should enter fights with every bit of force available or not all."²⁰ Consider a few examples of the application of this doctrine:

• General Powell inisted on deploying overwhelming force before going to war against Baghdad in the Gulf War. The Allied force of more than half a million troops demolished Saddam Hussein's army at a cost of fewer than 200 American lives while approximately 35,000 Iraqis were killed, including many civilians.

• Powell also oversaw the invasion of Panama, which required the deployment of 25,000 troops and the use of F-117 Stealth bombers for the first time. Thousands of Panamanian civilians were injured and displaced and at least 100 killed. He said later, "Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes. Decisive force ends wars quickly and in the long run saves lives."²¹

• In reaction to an attempt to assassinate President Bush in 1993, the U.S. launched 23 cruise missiles at Iraq's intelligence headquarters and hit a civilian neighborhood in the process. Powell later said this was an "appropriate, proportional" response.²²

• The U.S. also deployed massive force in the Balkans and, in 1999, accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing three and injuring 20.

The United States has not hesitated to use overwhelming force against its adversaries, even though the threats have been distant and in no way posed a danger to the existence of the nation or the security of its citizens. While U.S. military objectives were accomplished, they also were routinely accompanied by errors and collateral damage that resulted in the loss of civilian lives.

Israel is in a different position. The threat it faces is immediate in time and physical proximity and poses a direct danger to Israeli citizens. Still, Israel has not used its full might as the Powell Doctrine dictates. The use of force has been judicious and precise. In those instances where mistakes occur — as inevitably happens in war — the incidents are investigated. The bottom line is that Israel would have no need to respond with military force if the Palestinians were not attacking their citizens and soldiers.

MYTH

“Israel has consistently refused to take any steps to calm the situation and its unrelenting attacks provoked Palestinian violence despite Yasser Arafat's appeals for restraint.”

FACT

On May 22, 2001, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared a unilateral cease-fire in an effort to calm the situation, and in the hope the Palestinians would reciprocate by ending their violent attacks against Israelis. Instead the Palestinians intensified the level of violence directed particularly at Israeli civilians. Yasser Arafat did nothing to stop or discourage the attacks. More than 70 attacks were recorded in the next 10 days, during which Israel held its fire and eschewed any retaliation. The campaign of Palestinian terror during the Israeli cease-fire culminated with the suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv disco June 1 that killed 20 people and injured more than 90, mostly teenagers. In the face of overwhelming international pressure generated by the horrific attack, and the fear of an Israeli counterattack, Arafat finally declared a cease-fire.

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 Jewish 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

“Palestinians attack Israeli forces in spontaneous outbursts of frustration.”

FACT

Occasionally, Palestinians riot spontaneously for any number of reasons, from frustration to anger. More often, however, Palestinian violence is premeditated and planned by either terrorist cells within the Palestinian Authority or by the PA's own leaders. In the summer of 2001, for example, Palestinian commanders circulated instructions on confronting Israeli troops. The orders included the preparation of Molotov cocktails, hand grenades and barricades. Explosive "belts" were to be prepared for "hundreds of suicide youths who will be willing to confront the advancing troops." The insturctions also suggested conserving ammunition and attacking tanks only with "suitable weapons" and not with light guns. "Forward positions should be established by fighters willing to sacrifice their lives to stop the advancing enemy."²³

MYTH

“The Palestinians have observed the cease-fire negotiated by CIA Director George Tenet.”

FACT

In June 2001 CIA Director George Tenet traveled to the Middle East in an effort to solidify a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and lay the groundwork for a resumption of peace talks. The Tenet Plan called for an end to all violent activities. In the six weeks following Tenet's visit, however, Palestinians carried out 850 terrorist attacks resulting in 94 Israeli casualties, 17 of them fatalities.²⁴

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 the peace process. Since 1993, Israel believed that negotiating was the way to reach peace with the Palestinians, but after Israel gave back much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and offered virtually all of the remainder, the Palestinians rejected their concessions and chose to use violence to try to force Israel to capitulate to all their demands.

A second strategy is for Israel to "exercise restraint," that is, not respond to Palestinian violence. The international community lauds Israel when it simply 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 restraint to Israel 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.

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. This was widely viewed as an assassination attempt. President Reagan denied it, but later admitted "it was possible, perhaps probable, that he might be at or near the intelligence center when our planes struck." 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. 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."²⁶

Israel has chosen a third option – eliminating the masterminds of terror attacks. It is a policy that has caused great debate in Israel, but is supported by a vast majority of the public (70% in an August 2001 Ha'aretz poll). 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.²⁷

Deputy Chief of Staf 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 arest 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." ²⁸

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 Jews. 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. Third, it throws the terrorists off balance. Extremists can no longer nonchalantly plan an operation; rather, they must stay on the move, look over their shoulders at all times, and work much harder to carry out their goals. Fourth, eliminating terrorists can prevent attacks.

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.

Though the U.S. has a law that forbids assassination, in the wake of the murderous attack by terrorists on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was revealed that the Clinton Administration had, in fact, attempted to assassinate Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden in 1998 in retaliation for his role in the bombings of the United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. These attacks killed more than 200 people. Former Clinton officials now say that there is a loophole in the law prohibiting assassination that allows it in "self-defense." The Administration of George W. Bush subsequently expressed a similar view.³¹

MYTH

“The press makes no apologies for terrorists.”

FACT

On the contrary, 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 like "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." By contrast, every media outlet called the attack on the United States September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack.

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 feedom fighters, and who are we to judge, we're newspeople."

The notion that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist simply is not true. 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."³³

If the media judged events using this simple definition, journalists would have no difficulty using the word "terrorist."

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's use of American-made weapons in retaliatory attacks against the Palestinians is illegal.”

FACT

The United States has been closely monitoring Israeli actions. Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) wrote a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell asking whether Israel was violating U.S. law by using American arms in its strikes against Palestinian terrorists. Powell responded in a letter dated August 17, 2001, that Israel's actions did not violate U.S. law. The law in question is the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and it states that defense articles will be used only for specified purposes, including internal security and legitimate self-defense. Israel has maintained that it has been acting in self-defense and the Bush Administration concurs.³⁴

MYTH

“America's support of Israel is the reason that terrorists hijacked four airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”

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 Saudia 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.

MYTH

“The hijacking of four airliners in one day on September 11, 2001, was an unprecedented act of terror.”

FACT

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.³⁵

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 Cairo). 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 Sept. 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.³⁶ The turning point, however, was when King Hussein decided this was the final insult in the Palestinian campaign to take over his country and waged an all-out war against Yasser Arafat and all the PLO factions, ultimately driving them out of Jordan and into Lebanon. This came to be known among Palestinians as "Black September" (another terrorist group adopted this as its name and murdered 11 athletes two years later at the Munich Olympics).

After the hijackings, shocked congressman 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.³⁷ Virtually nothing was done and hijackings and other terrorist atrocities have continued up to the present day.

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 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 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.³⁸

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. The Palestinians also closed universities and school in the Gaza Strip.³⁹

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.⁴⁰

• 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.41

• 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

¹Jerusalem Post, (March 4, 2001).
²Quoted in Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee First Statement of the Government of Israel, Israeli Foreign Ministry, (December 28, 2000).
³Israel Defense Forces
⁴Jerusalem Post, (February 22, 2001).
⁵Ha'aretz, (February 11, 2001)
⁶Jerusalem Post, (January 26, 2001).
⁷JTA, (February 12, 2001).
⁸Ha'aretz, (March 1, 2001).
⁹Near East Report, (February 5, 2001).
¹⁰Washington Post, (April 26, 2001).
¹¹Jerusalem Post, (March 6, 2001).
¹²CNN, IDF, Jerusalem Post, (November 28, 2000)
¹³Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 335.
¹⁴Terence Prittie, "Middle East Refugees," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), pp. 66-67.
¹⁵Jerusalem Report, (March 26, 2001).
¹⁶Saudi Arabian women's magazine, Sayidaty, quoted by AP, (May 3, 2001).
¹⁷Letter from George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to ADL Director Abraham Foxman, (May 11, 2001).
¹⁸Briefing by Major General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Operation Branch, to the Foreign Press Association, Jerusalem, (May 20, 2001).
¹⁹State Department Briefing, (April 17, 2001)
²⁰Time, (April 19, 2001)
²¹Collin Powell, My American Journey, (NY: Random House, 1995), p. 434.
²²Washington Post, (June 28, 1993).
²³Foreign Report, (July 26, 2001).
²⁴Jerusalem Post, (August 2, 2001).
²⁵Fox News, (August 3, 2001).
²⁶RonaldReagan.com, Washington Post and other news sources.
²⁷JTA, (August 30, 2001).
²⁸Jerusalem Post, (August 10, 2001).
²⁹News Conference, (September 12, 2001).
³⁰Jerusalem Post, (September 10, 2001).
³¹Washington Post, (September 14 and 18, 2001).
³²Washington Post, (September 7, 2001).
³³Washington Post, (September 13, 2001).
³⁴Jerusalem Post, (August 24, 2001).
³⁵Henry Kissinger, The White House Years. (MA: Little Brown & Co.), 1979, pp. 600-617.
³⁶Guardian Unlimited, (January 1, 2001).
³⁷Near East Report, (September 16, 1970).
³⁸Associated Press and Jerusalem Post, (September 13, 2001), IMRA, (September 13-14, 2001), JTA, (September 20, 2001).
³⁹JTA, (October 8, 2001); AP, (October 10, 2001); and Jerusalem Post, (October 10, 2001).
⁴⁰Neil Livingstone and David Halevy. Inside the PLO, (Readers Digest Press, 1990), pp. 276-288.
⁴¹Chicago Tribune, (May 5, 1988).
⁴²Washington Post, (August 10, 2001).

See also: Israel
Negotiations with the Palestinians
Human Rights
Peace Process

Previous
Next
Table of Contents
Index

To order the paperback edition, click HERE.