Faith Freedom International

[bush badee]

jEWISH

THE ONLY OCCUPIED TERRITORIES ARE OCCUPIED BY ARABS
DISPUTED TERRITORIES: Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Foreign Ministry of Israel - February 2003
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0n1m0

Introduction

In 1967, Israel fought a desperate war of self-defense and despite dire
odds, won. As a result, the Jewish State not only survived, it also came
into possession of additional lands, including territory that is of vital
importance to its security.

The Six Day War and its consequences still affect the Middle East today. A
clear understanding of how and why the territories came into Israel’s
possession in 1967 and an awareness of Israel's connection to these areas
are essential components of any fair and balanced discussion of their
current status. This information has taken on particular importance in light
of the current situation and Palestinian attempts to reduce a complex
conflict to a single issue - Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip.

The Palestinians and their supporters are attempting to promote their cause
by channeling every event through the prism of the disputed territories. In
doing so, they have succeeded in diverting the discussion away from the
relevant facts, rewriting or ignoring history and reinventing international
law to suit their aims. These facts must not be forgotten.



Facts

By focusing exclusively on "the occupation," Palestinian spokespersons are
obscuring some of the basic facts of the conflict. They never mention why
Israel's presence in the disputed territories began or the reasons for the
continuation of the conflict, and ignore the historical and legal context of
Israel's presence there. Following are four key issues that the Palestinians
deliberately and consistently try to conceal:

Disputed, not "Occupied", Territory

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only
be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories
captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West
Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty
of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered
occupied territories.

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a
continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of
Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.

Legality of Israel's Presence in the Territories

Despite persistent claims by the Palestinians and their supporters,
occupation is not, in and of itself, illegal. It does not violate
international law. Rather, international law attempts to regulate situations
of occupation through the application of pertinent international conventions
and agreements. Therefore, political motivations lie behind the claim that
Israel's presence in the territories is illegal. Israel's presence in the
territories is not illegal.

Israel's presence in the territories began in 1967 as a direct result of the
aggressive actions of Israel's neighbors that forced Israel into a war of
self-defense.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted following the Six Day
War, places obligations on both sides (as does Resolution 338, adopted
following the 1973 Yom Kippur War). 242 does not call for unilateral
withdrawal from the territories. Despite this, the Palestinians focus
exclusively on the call for an Israeli withdrawal, ignoring those clauses
that place responsibilities on the other parties to the conflict.

Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories
gained as a result of the 1967 war, as the Arab regimes claim. Instead, the
resolution deliberately restricts itself to calling for Israel's withdrawal
"from territories" while recognizing the right to live within secure and
recognized boundaries.

Terrorism Cannot be Justified

Incessant references by Palestinian spokespersons to "the occupation" are
used to delegitimize not only Israel's presence in the territories, but also
to justify terrorism.

Terrorism - the intentional, politically motivated use of violence against
civilians and other non-combatants - is clearly beyond the pale of
international law. Suicide bombings are a crime against humanity, and no
political goal can ever justify the use of terrorism.

Palestinian terrorism preceded Israel's presence in the territories. Indeed,
the PLO (the Palestinian Liberation Organization) was founded in 1964, three
years before the 1967 Six Day War.

Israel's Pursuit of Peace

Israel's presence in the territories continued after 1967 as the Arab
regimes refused to negotiate with Israel despite continuous and genuine
Israeli offers of peace. For close to a quarter century, the Palestinians
refused to abandon terrorism and conduct peaceful negotiations.

Even after the Palestinians decided to join the peace process in the early
1990s, no permanent resolution of the dispute could be reached due to
Palestinian terrorism and their unwillingness to reach reasonable
compromises.

Israel, as a democracy, has no desire to control the lives or future of the
Palestinians. Israel - which has made extensive territorial concessions to
the Palestinians since 1993 - has always been willing to make great
sacrifices in the name of peace.

The omission of historical facts allows the Palestinians to avoid
responsibility for their role both in creating and perpetuating the
situation in the territories. Distortions of international law are part and
parcel of Palestinian attempts to delegitimize Israel while justifying the
unjustifiable - terrorism.



Territories in Dispute

International Law and Occupation

Palestinian spokespersons and their supporters have expended great efforts
to advance their claim that a state of occupation is - by definition -
illegal. This ingenuous claim not only ignores international law, but also
by its very repetition at every opportunity, attempts to create new
international norms.

The claim that any occupation - no matter the reasons for its establishment
or its continued existence - is illegal is not consistent with the
principles of international law. The international legal system does not
outlaw occupation. Rather it uses international conventions and agreements
to regulate such situations.

Many states hold onto territory taken in a war - particularly a war of
self-defense - until a peace treaty is negotiated. In fact, many situations
of dispute exist today around the world in which one side continues to hold
territory that another claims. A key difference in the situation regarding
the West Bank and Gaza Strip is that Israel has attempted to negotiate a
peaceful resolution to the status of these disputed territories ever since
they came into Israel's possession.

Claims of illegality are politically motivated as neither international law
nor the agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority support this
baseless allegation.

Jewish Ties to the Territories



Jews have lived in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza Strip continuously
for 4000 years since Biblical times and throughout the centuries since then.
Jewish sovereignty there spanned 1000 years and those areas were the cradle
of Jewish civilization. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites,
including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob), are located in these areas. Jewish communities grew in Gaza during
the 11th century and other areas, such as Hebron (where Jews lived until
they were massacred in 1929), were inhabited by Jews throughout the four
hundred years of Ottoman rule and much before. Additional Jewish communities
flourished under the British Mandatory administration that replaced the
Ottoman Empire in 1918.

The Palestinians often contend that the Jews are foreign colonizers in
territory to which they had no previous connection. Indeed, much of the Arab
world considers all of Israel - and not just the disputed territories - as a
foreign entity in the region. Such claims disregard the continuous ties of
the Jewish people with their age-old homeland and the deep bond of the
people of Israel to its land, both in biblical and later periods.

These claims also serve to perpetuate the myth that a Palestinian state
existed in the area prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. In
fact, no independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in the area
known as Palestine.

The Jordanian and Egyptian Occupations

The Jewish presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip ended only with the 1948
War of Independence. Conquering these territories in a war of aggression
aimed at destroying the nascent State of Israel, the Jordanians and
Egyptians totally eliminated the Jewish presence in the West Bank and Gaza,
forbidding Jews to live there and declaring the sale of land to Jews in
those areas a capital offense.

It is worth noting that Jordanian and Egyptian rule came about as the result
of their illegal invasion of 1948, in open contempt and rejection of UN
General Assembly Resolution 181, which would have partitioned the British
Mandate territory into a Jewish State and an Arab State. For this reason,
the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized
by the international community.

The Status of the Territories

The status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip can only be decided by agreement
between the parties. During the 1990s, Israel and the Palestinians agreed
that the final status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not yet resolved
and should be decided in peaceful negotiations.

Furthermore, the fact that there were no established sovereigns in the West
Bank or Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War means that the territories
should not be viewed as "occupied" by Israel. When territory without an
established sovereign comes into the possession of a state with a competing
claim - particularly during a war of self-defense - that territory can be
considered disputed.



A War of Self-Defense

The fact that Israel fought a war of self-defense in the Six Day War in June
1967 was recognized by the world's democracies at the time. It was that
defensive war against Arab aggression that resulted in Israel's taking
control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Calls for Annihilation

Prior to the start of the Six Day War, a continuous flow of statements by
Arab leaders and official media sources left no doubt as to their
intentions - not only did the Arab states intend to attack Israel, they
meant to destroy it.

"We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war.
Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel." (Egyptian President Gamel Abdel
Nasser, 26 May 1967)

"The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will
result in the extermination of Zionist existence." (Egyptian Radio, "Voice
of the Arabs", 18 May 1967)

"I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle
of annihilation." (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, 20 May 1967)

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified... Our goal is
clear - to wipe Israel off the map." (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, 31
May 1967)

The Arab threats to destroy Israel in the period preceding the war were made
when Israel did not control the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Threat to Israel's Existence

Given the strength of the opposing armies and the physical size of the
country in 1967, Israel had every reason to fear these threats. It was a
small state, surrounded by heavily armed and hostile neighbors. In its
pre-1967 boundaries, Israel was only 15 kilometers (9 miles) wide at some
places. The armies of Israel's enemies in the West Bank and Gaza were
stationed a mere 18 km. (11 miles) from Tel Aviv, 35 km. (21 miles) from
Haifa, 11 km. (7 miles) from Ashkelon and only meters from Israeli
neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

These threats were not empty rhetoric. Hostile actions by Israel's neighbors
left little doubt as to either the seriousness of their intent or their
ability to carry out a massive assault on Israel.

In the weeks before the war, a coalition of Arab states - including Egypt,
Syria, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Iraq, Algeria and Kuwait - united
against Israel. As Egyptian President Nasser said on 30 May 1967, "The
armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of
Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of
Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation.... the critical hour
has arrived." War frenzy was sweeping through the Arab world.

Egypt Tightens the Noose

On 15 May 1967, the Egyptians began to move large numbers of troops and
armored vehicles into the Sinai Peninsula, ending a ten-year period during
which the Sinai was free of hostile forces. While Egyptian troops massed
along Israel's border in the south, the Syrian army prepared for war on the
Golan Heights in the north. Nasser demanded that the UN Secretary-General
withdraw UNEF - the United Nations Emergency Force peacekeepers - from the
Sinai, where they had been stationed since 1956. Secretary-General U Thant
complied with considerable haste, thus breaking an international promise to
Israel. UNEF ceased to function on 19 May, removing the last barrier to the
Egyptian war machine. The State of Israel was alone and encircled by armies
whose leaders had vowed to bring about its annihilation.

Israel's Defensive Response

In response, Israel began to call up its reserve forces. Having only a small
standing army, Israel had to rely on its reservists to repulse any attack.
This mobilization of Israel's doctors and teachers, farmers and shopkeepers
carried a heavy economic and social burden. Israelis began digging trenches
in preparation for aerial attacks and shelling. Yet Israel's leaders chose
to wait three long weeks before reacting militarily, in the hope that war
could be avoided and a peaceful solution to the crisis could be found.

The Blockade

The situation continued to deteriorate sharply. On 22 May, Egypt blocked the
Straits of Tiran, closing off Eilat, Israel's only Red Sea port, to Israeli
ships and Israel-bound foreign vessels. Israel was now cut off from trade
with Asia and East Africa. Most significantly, Israel was denied access to
its main supplier of oil. President Nasser was fully aware that Israel would
regard the closure as an act of aggression.

This move violated the right of innocent maritime passage, in clear
contradiction of international law. Traditionally, under international law,
a blockade is considered an act of war. Moreover, Egypt's actions violated
the 1957 declaration of 17 maritime powers at the UN, that stated that
Israel had the right of transit through the Straits of Tiran, as well as the
1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.

The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was a clear-cut act of aggression. No
country can stand by while a major port has been arbitrarily and maliciously
blockaded, in violation of international law, particularly when vital
shipments - including oil - are at stake. Had Israel responded by attacking
Egypt immediately after the imposition of the blockade, this measure could
only have been regarded as a justified reaction to Egypt's act of war.

Israel Searches for a Diplomatic Solution...

However, despite the blockade, the daily diet of threats and the hostile
military activity, Israel continued to wait. Israel's leadership wanted to
exhaust every prospect for a diplomatic solution before reacting.
Unfortunately, while there was a great deal of international sympathy for
Israel's plight, there was little tangible assistance.

...But is Forced to Respond Militarily

Israel was left with few options. It had been surrounded by approximately
465,000 enemy troops, more than 2880 tanks and 810 aircraft. Given its small
geographical size and the relative strength of the opposing armies, had
Israel waited for the expected invasion to begin before acting, the results
could have been catastrophic for its very survival.

Invoking its inherent right of self-defense, a basic tenet of international
law that is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Israel
launched a preemptive strike against Egypt on 5 June 1967.

Israel's Message of Peace

Israel had no desire to see the fighting spread to its eastern or northern
fronts. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent out a message of peace to Israel's
neighbors: "We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us. Even
now, when the mortars speak, we have not given up our quest for peace. We
strive to repel all menace of terrorism and any danger of aggression to
ensure our security and our legitimate rights."

Further Arab Aggression

The Syrians responded by bombardments with artillery fire and with
long-range guns.

In the east, Jordan was convinced by Egypt that the planes appearing on the
radar screens were Egyptian aircraft on their way to attack Israel, and not
Israeli planes returning from a strike on the Egyptian Air Force. On 5 June,
Jordan began ground movements and shelling across the armistice lines,
including in Jerusalem and on Israel's main airport near Tel Aviv. Despite
the attack, Israel sent another message of peace, this time through
representatives of the UN. Still, the Jordanian attack persisted.

This may have been one of the most crucial decisions of the war. Had Jordan
listened to Israel's messages of peace instead of Egypt's lies, the
Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict, and eastern
Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan's possession.
However, when the attack on western Jerusalem continued, Israel defended
itself and united its capital, divided since 1949. The capture of the Old
City of Jerusalem gave Jews access to their holiest sites for the first time
in 19 years, while freedom of worship and access to holy sites were now
guaranteed to all.

The Post-War Period and Resolution 242

Defensible Borders

On 10 June 1967, at the end of six days of fierce fighting in which 776
Israeli soldiers lost their lives, a cease-fire was reached. Previous
cease-fire lines were now replaced by new ones - the West Bank of the Jordan
River, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and a large part of the Golan
Heights had come under Israel's control as a result of the war. Syria could
no longer use the Golan Heights to launch artillery bombardments on Israeli
homes below. The passage of ships to Israel through the Straits of Tiran was
ensured. Israel now had defensible borders, and the imminent threat to its
very existence was no longer.

Hopes for Peace

When the Six Day War ended, Israelis believed that a new era was beginning,
one that would bring peace to the region. Hoping to translate military gains
into a permanent peace, Israel sent out a clear message that it would
exchange almost all the territory gained in the war for peace with its
neighbors.

Furthermore, Israel gave strong indications of its deep desire to negotiate
a solution, including through territorial compromise, by deciding not to
annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip. This is important evidence of Israel's
intent given both the strategic depth these areas offered and the Jewish
people's age-old ties to numerous religious and historical sites, especially
in the West Bank.

Arab rejectionism

But Israel's hope for peace was quickly dashed. The Arab states began to
rearm and, at the August 1967 Arab League meeting in the Sudan, adopted as
their political position "the three nos," principles by which the Arab
states were to abide, namely, "no peace with Israel, no recognition of
Israel, no negotiations with it." The Khartoum Summit's hard-line position
forestalled all chances for peace for years. As Israel's then Foreign
Minister Abba Eban said, "This is the first war in history which has ended
with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for
unconditional surrender."

242: A Misrepresented Resolution

Since 1967, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 has played a
central role in the peace process. It may well be one of the most important
UN resolutions regarding the conflict - however, it is also one of the most
misrepresented.

The Palestinians often depict the resolution as a simple document whose
principal goal is a unilateral and complete Israeli withdrawal from the
territories as a precondition for ending the conflict. In reality, the
resolution is a balanced and measured instrument whose goal is "the
fulfillment of Charter principles" by the "establishment of a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East."

"Territories" vs. "The Territories"

As a rule, the Palestinians and their supporters misstate the resolution by
claiming that 242 calls for Israel's withdrawal from "all" the territories,
although this is neither the language used in the resolution nor the intent
of its framers.

Resolution 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw "from territories" occupied in
the recent conflict", not "from all the territories" or even "from the
territories". The use of the phrase "from territories" was deliberately
chosen by the members of the Security Council after extensive study and
months of consultations, this despite considerable pressure from the Arab
States to include the word "all". As then US Ambassador Arthur Goldberg
would explain in 1973, these notable omissions "were not accidental.... the
resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining
the extent of the withdrawal."

Secure Borders According to 242

It should be noted that Resolution 242 recognizes the need, indeed the
right, for "secure and recognized boundaries." By declining to call upon
Israel to withdraw to the pre-war lines, the Security Council recognized
that the previous borders were indefensible, and that, at the very least,
Israel would be justified in retaining those parts of the territories
necessary to establish secure borders. As then UK Ambassador Lord Caradon
would later state, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to
its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and
artificial."

Joint Obligations

The principal UN Security Council resolutions, including 242 (and 338,
adopted after the 1973 Yom Kippur War), address all sides of the conflict,
and not just Israel. Despite this, Palestinian spokespersons only refer to
Israel's responsibilities under the resolution, ignoring joint
responsibilities as well as obligations incumbent on the Arab side, although
these clauses form an integral part of the resolution. Among the clauses of
242 clearly aimed at the Arab states, or expressing joint obligations, are:

"a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in
security;"
"termination of all claims or states of belligerency;"
"respect and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area;"
respect and acknowledgement of "their right to live in peace within secure
and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
"freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;"
"guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of
every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of
demilitarized zones."

Clearly Israel was not expected to withdraw without the Arab regimes
fulfilling their obligations - principally to renounce the use of force and
make peace with Israel - and Israel's withdrawal is certainly not a
prerequisite to its fundamental right to live in peace.

Additionally, Resolution 338 - which is invariably coupled with 242 - calls
upon the parties to begin negotiations aimed at "establishing a just and
durable peace in the Middle East". Taken together, these two resolutions
express the Security Council's determination that peace should be reached
through non-violent negotiations between the parties.



Terrorism and "the Occupation" Excuse

Palestinian Manipulation of the Term "Occupation"

"Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's
visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong.... This intifada was planned in
advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David
negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton."
In March 2001, Imad al-Faluji PA Minister of Communications, spoke
publicly in Lebanon about the premeditated nature of the violence.

Palestinian Terrorism - before 1967 and during the peace process in
the mid-90s

The Palestinians are trying to portray the current wave of violence and
terrorism as the spontaneous reaction of a frustrated people to the Israeli
"occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This misrepresentation of the
situation ignores the strategic decision made by the Palestinian leadership
to abandon negotiations and concentrate on the armed struggle against
Israel. It also omits the fact that the Palestinians began to orchestrate
the violence that started in September 2000 immediately after they caused
the failure of the Camp David peace summit in July of that year.

The claim that "the occupation" caused the wave of violence and terrorism
that began in September 2000 soon become the central Palestinian theme. The
methodology of Palestinian spokespersons was simple: Answer every question
with "the occupation is responsible," say "the occupation caused it" after
every act of terrorism. "Occupation" provided them with a simple buzzword
that could be used to condemn Israel at every turn and to absolve the
Palestinians of responsibility for their every action. But repeating a lie
hundreds of times does not make it true.

Incessant Palestinian references to "the occupation" are aimed, in part, at
delegitimization of Israel's presence in the territories. Palestinian calls
to "end the occupation" are being used to mobilize the international
community against Israel. Palestinian leaders have long believed that the
application of international pressure on Israel is an important component of
their strategy to defeat Israel. They believe they can force Israel, through
terrorism, to leave the territories without ending the conflict and without
achieving a negotiated peace.

The Palestinians Justify Terrorism

Most abhorrently, the Palestinians use "the occupation" as a justification
for the unjustifiable - terrorism. No goal - including ending the so-called
occupation - can ever excuse the deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians.
Suicide bombings cannot become an acceptable means to induce political
change. Targeting children cannot ever be justified.

Palestinian attempts to excuse terrorism by blaming it on "the occupation"
are not only morally repugnant, they attempt to corrode the precept that
suicide bombings are a crime against humanity. To accept the lie that "the
occupation" caused the terrorism helps encourage terrorism itself, while
condoning its use is not only immoral but contributes to the perpetuation of
the conflict.

The Roots of Palestinian Terrorism

It is not Israel's presence in the territories that caused terrorism.
Rather, the violence is fostered by the hatred of Israel, and nurtured by
incessant incitement from Palestinian officials and religious leaders.

It should be remembered that Palestinian terrorism predates Israel's
presence in the territories. Not only were there endless terrorist attacks
on Israeli civilians during the two decades that preceded the Six Day War,
they even occurred prior to the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel.

The claim that the 1967 "occupation" of the territories caused Palestinian
terrorism is particularly specious coming from PLO members, as the Palestine
Liberation Organization was created in 1964, three years before the Six Day
War, when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under Israeli rule.

Terrorism vs. Efforts for Peace

History demonstrates that Palestinian terrorism is not caused by frustration
or the absence of hope for a peaceful solution. Horrific waves of attacks
have occurred during periods of major advances in the peace process.
Terrorist strikes have often peaked during those times - such as the
mid-1990s - when the process has been at its most active and thereby most
likely to bring an end to the so-called "occupation."

Claims that Israel's presence in the territories causes terrorism are
misleading, as they ignore the history of terrorist attacks against Israel
and the countless Israeli offers of peace that were rejected by the
Palestinians.

The Palestinians Reject Peace at Camp David


In July 2000, the United States hosted a Middle East peace summit designed
to address the remaining final-status issues of the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process. Israel's willingness to make unprecedented compromises for
peace was based on the conviction that only a negotiated settlement could
resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership was not willing to end the
conflict. Not only was it unwilling to compromise on any of the difficult
and complicated issues, it was not prepared to present any reasonable
proposals of its own.

International Criticism of the Palestinians

The Palestinian leadership came under international criticism for the
failure of the Camp David summit, particularly after the US blamed the
Palestinians directly. The international community could not comprehend the
Palestinians' reasons for rejecting a most sweeping peace offer, that would
have given the Palestinians virtually all that they had been ostensibly
demanding.

Violence as a Strategy

After "analyzing the political positions following the Camp David summit,
and in accordance with what brother Abu Amar [Arafat] said, it became clear
to the Fatah movement that the next stage necessitates preparation for
confrontation."
Fatah Central Committee member Sakhr Habash told the PA daily
newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida on 7 December 2000.

"The only way to impose our conditions is inevitably through our blood...the
power of the intifada is our only weapon. We should not toss this weapon
away until the Arab emergency summit is convened and until we gain
international protection."
Hassan al-Kashef, Director-General of the PA Ministry of Information,
wrote in his Al-Ayyam column of 3 October 2000

The Palestinian leadership realized that it must act in order to regain
international support. The Palestinians adopted a strategy whereby violence
would be the primary instrument to divert the world's attention away from
Palestinian intransigence at Camp David and put pressure on Israel. The
Palestinians hoped that the resulting bloodshed would restore their image as
victims and bolster their calls for international intervention, leading to a
unilateral Israeli withdrawal while the conflict continues.

A Fundamental Breach

The Palestinian decision to use violence contradicted two core commitments
that they made prior to Oslo. Yasser Arafat broke his own pledge by which
"the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" and the
PLO commits itself "to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two
sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status
will be resolved through negotiations." These two core commitments,
stipulated in Arafat's 9 September 1993 letter to the late Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, were the basis of Rabin's decision to sign the Oslo Accords.
===

September 9, 1993

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history
of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the
following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and
security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all
outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through
negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles
constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful
coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and
stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other
acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and
personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and
discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of
Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the
Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions
of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter
are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to
submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary
changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
====


The Peace Process

The Palestinian Path of Violence

Since before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and to this
day, the Palestinians have refused to take advantage of the many
opportunities to reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict. Instead, the
Palestinian leadership chose the path of violence, rejecting Israel's every
offer of peace. The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an
opportunity, as the late Foreign Minister Abba Eban said.

The Road to Peace

The pattern of Israeli appeals for peace being met with Arab rejection and
hostile actions continued unabated for more than a decade after the 1967
war. This was first broken in November 1977, when Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat visited Jerusalem. The subsequent negotiations resulted in the Camp
David Accords of September 1978 and the March 1979 peace treaty between
Egypt and Israel. Israel pulled out of the entire Sinai Peninsula. The
thirty-year-old state of war between the two countries ended and
internationally recognized boundaries were established. It should be noted
that every time Israel met an Arab leader, like President Sadat of Egypt and
King Hussein of Jordan, who were ready to make peace and who spoke the
language of peace to their own people, Israel made peace with them.

The Camp David Accords of 1978 contained a framework for establishing a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a detailed proposal for
self-government for Fthe Palestinians in the territories as a stipulated
prelude to negotiations over the final status of the territories. Sadly, the
Palestinians, supported by other Arab leaders, rejected this opportunity.
This Palestinian intransigence persisted for some time despite the model of
peaceful resolution represented by the Israeli-Egyptian treaty and despite
the numerous initiatives put forward by Israel and others.

Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Gulf War and the subsequent
changes in the international system and the Middle East did the Palestinians
offer to abandon violence and negotiate peace with Israel. In 1991 - 43
years after the establishment of the State of Israel - the Palestinians
finally agreed to join the peace process and participate in the 1991 Madrid
Peace Conference and the 1993 Oslo Accords. Sadly, the Palestinian
leadership has not lived up to its commitments to refrain from terror,
destroy the terrorist infrastructure and end the incessant incitement to
hatred and violence. On the contrary, the Palestinian Authority has aided,
abetted and fomented terrorism. Forces directly accountable to Arafat have
perpetrated countless acts of terrorism. Palestinian Authority-controlled
media has incited the terrorism which has taken so many innocent lives and
has greatly damaged the prospects for achieving a negotiated peace.

Israel's Willingness to Compromise

The disputed status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, combined with the
refusal of the Palestinians to sign peace agreements with Israel that would
define the final borders, means that the precise status of the territories
has yet to be determined. And in the negotiations to determine the future
status of these disputed territories, Israel's legitimate claims, and not
just the Palestinian positions, must be taken into account.

Despite the Jewish people's historic and religious connection to these
territories, in order to achieve peace Israel has always been willing to
compromise. Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians in the
territories and Israel's yearning for peace is so strong that all Israeli
governments have been willing to make major sacrifices to achieve this goal.
Still, the ongoing terrorism has caused many Israelis to doubt whether the
Palestinians are truly interested in peace and whether some of the
concessions that Israel was prepared to make two years ago are possible.

For negotiations to succeed, a responsible and moderate Palestinian
leadership must emerge, one that has abandoned for all time the goal of
destroying Israel and one that actively fights terrorism. Until that
happens, Palestinian terrorism will continue to destroy innocent lives and
Palestinian extremism will undermine the chance of peace for both
Palestinians and Israelis.
_________________
to answere directly email to
Bushbadee@aol.com

[militantms]

World Net Daily
Israeli Leader Urges Recognition of Jordan as'True Palestinian State'

An Israeli cabinet member who calls the U.S. backed "road may" a disaster for Israel is proposing an alternative path to peace that recognizes Jordan as the true Palestinian state and Israeli soverignty over the West Bank and Gaza.

Minister of tourism Benny Elon, who voted against the road map Sunday, will explain his peace plan at a press conference tomorrow morning at the Knesset building in Jerusalem.

Elon contends not one of the fundamental issues of the conflict is addressed by the road map.

"The refugee problem, the right of return and permanent borders all aren't addressed, but my plan clearly addresses these issues," he said in a statement.

"We want peace," he said, "but a peace which entails an end to violence and an end to the Arab Israel conflict - not peace which encourages the Palestinians to continue with violence and terrorism."

Elon argues Jordan is the true Palestinian state, pointing out about 70 percent of its citizens consider themselves Palestinians. After World War I, he notes, the British Mandate of Palestine included present day Israel, the West bank, Gaza and Jordan. But the original territory was divided in 1922 when the British gave about three-fourths of it - the land east of the Jordan River - to King Abdullah, great-grandfather of present-day Jordanian King Abdullah.

On Sunday, the Israeli cabinet, by a 12-7 vote with four abstentions, gave conditional approval to the road map after contentious debate.

The road map is a phased plan drafted by the U.S. European Union, United Nations and Russia that require the Palestinian Authority in the first stage to implement administrative reforms and fight terror. The plan calls eventually for a Palestinian state followed by a final-status agreement addressing issues such as borders, Jerusalem and refugees.

Elon entitled his plan, "the Right Road To Peace, In the Wake of the War in Iraq - A Historic Opportunity for a Regional Solution to the Israeli-Palesinian Conflict."

Six major points addressed in the Elon plan include:
- Dissolution of the Palestinian Authority.
- A firm end to Palestinian terrorism by expelling terrorists, collecting weapons and dismantling terror-hotbed refugee camps.
- The international community will recognize the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians and provide it economic assistance to enable absorption of a limited number of refugees.
- Israel will become sovereign over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs living there will be Jordanian citizens living as residents of Israel.
- The exchange of Jewish and Arab populations begun in 1948 will be completed, and the international community will assist with rehabilitation of refugees in their new countries.
- Israel and Jordan-Palestine will declare the conflict ended and will work together as neighbors.

Elon, leader of the Moledet Party, is the political successor of late tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi, who was assassinated last year by Palestinian gunmen.
_________________
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint. Isa. 40:31

[Mission_Impossible]

[thinklogic]

[bush badee]

[quote="Mission_Impossible"][quote="bush badee"]JEWISH

THE ONLY OCCUPIED TERRITORIES ARE OCCUPIED BY ARABS[/quote]

THIS IS 100% TRUE! Why doesn't the rest of the world realize this fact!?

Kind Regards,

MI[/quote]

Because the rest of the world has practiced Jewophobia for the last 2000 years.
Just as the arabs so violently practice it now.
_________________
to answere directly email to
Bushbadee@aol.com

[militantms]

[militantms]

Odyssey to Holocaust


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32923


It is most important to recognize that neither the Muslims, Palestinians nor Israelis own the land - God proclims that He does. God then declares that He will give His land to the decendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even though they do not deserve it. Ezekiel 36:22-25

God unconditionally swore to the decendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that He would give them the land forever. Jer. 31:35-37
_________________
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint. Isa. 40:31

[militantms]

This is not a "happy" article, but the author makes some excellent points, so I'm putting it here.


The Silly Israeli-Palestinian Solution From the Left


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33021
_________________
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint. Isa. 40:31

[militantms]

Cycle of Violence?

Israel is just doing what the United States did when President Bush declared a war on terrorism.

What's the solution to the Israeli - Palestinian crisis? Probably war.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33064

(I hate to keep "using" Joseph Farah in so many of my posts; but it's his own fault for being so-right, so-much. "Nobody does it better.")
_________________
But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint. Isa. 40:31

[Antonia]

        
         
Who are the Palestinians?
Hal Lindsay

One of the most misunderstood issues today is the question of "Who are the Palestinians"? The truth about this matter has been so deliberately obscured that even to raise the question will seem strange to most readers.
In my book, "The Everlasting Hatred, the Roots of Jihad," I trace the history of the people now being called the "Palestinians." The land of Israel became known as Palestine after the Roman destruction of Israel in A.D. 70. It was ruled by many different invaders for the following 19 centuries.
In the 7th century, the Muslims took control of Palestine for the first time. From A.D. 635 until 1917, the Muslims ruled it, with only a few interruptions by the European Crusaders. During that span of time, the land was reduced to total desolation. Many people who traveled the land in the 19th century remarked on the fact that Palestine was as desolate as the moon and very few people lived there.
In 1867, Mark Twain remarked about his visit to the Holy Land in his book, "The Innocents Abroad." He lamented, "Stirring scenes occur in the valley [of Jezreel] no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings."
By all eyewitness accounts of that era, Palestine was a total desolation. There were virtually no trees and no people. Because of lack of trees, the weather changed and it rarely ever rained. The irrigation systems of the once fertile valleys were all destroyed, rendering most areas into malaria-ridden swamps. The terraces of the mountainsides were torn down, causing terrible erosion that left only barren rocks. This was the condition of Palestine by the beginning of the 19th century.
It was at this time that Jews began to flee severe persecutions in Russia and Eastern Europe. In the mid-1800s, some Jews came to Palestine and, with the generous aid of some successful Jews like the Rothschilds, began to buy property from Muslim Ottoman Turks. The Muslims thought the land was worthless anyway, so they sold it to the "dumb Jews" for extremely inflated prices.
To everyone's amazement, the Jews were very successful at reclaiming the land. Many of them died from malaria and the rigorous life the work demanded, but they performed an agricultural miracle that made the land very productive again. As a result of their success, poor migrant workers from the surrounding Muslim countries began to flood in to work for the Jews. The Jews literally became victims of their own success – almost all of the people calling themselves "Palestinians" today are the descendants of those migrant workers.
Much more is said and documented on this subject in my book. But the main point is this: The Muslims have repeatedly shown they understand these things. Since they know that the so-called "Palestinians" are not a homogeneous people, but rather a mixed conglomerate of workers with no cohesive organizational or political skills, they have repeatedly not given them a state.
When the Hashemite Tribe, who were rulers over Mecca and Medina for centuries, were driven out by the Saudis, the British gave them control over the vastly greater numbers of "migrant workers" in Trans Jordan. The British said this would be, in effect, "The State of Palestine." Instead, the Hashemites, who make up only about 20 percent of the population, turned it into their own kingdom and called it the Kingdom of Jordan.
When the Jordanians and Egyptians controlled the so-called West Bank and the Gaza Strip for 19 years (1948 to 1967), there was never a thought of giving the disorganized mass of "migrant workers" a state. Why? Because they knew there was no cohesive, homogeneous people known as "Palestinians."
The current efforts of Jordan and Egypt (and all the rest of the Muslim Middle East nations) to give these same people a state is clearly a ploy to get a foothold inside Israel. It is a strategic accommodation to establish a base from which the final assault against Israel can be made. What they couldn't do militarily is now being facilitated through the United States and the E.U.
Muslims will never accept a permanent presence of infidels in what they claim is sacred Islamic soil. Especially Jewish infidels for which the Koran reserves its most vehement condemnations. In their minds, the Koran and Allah will not let them accept Jews in what they view as their third holiest site.
The United States had better learn these things, or we will find ourselves guilty of facilitating the destruction of God's people, to whom the Word of God says the land belongs forever. God will not let that happen, but He will certainly judge those who have any part in trying to do it.
God warned: "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom [Arabs], who took MY LAND to themselves as a possession, with whole-hearted joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open country ... But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, for they are about to come.'" (Ezekiel 36: 5, 8 NKJ)

[Antonia]

The Roadblock

Bush's dance with Mahmoud Abbas


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33755

[bush badee]

Prisoner release is not part of the road map.

The ignorant Jews thought that one up themselves.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.

Last time they released prisoners, they went right back to their murdering. Won't they learn any thing.
_________________
to answere directly email to
Bushbadee@aol.com

[Mazdak]

I always had some doubts about Israel due to false propagenda by islamists, but now I am 100% convinced that Israel is rightfuly a Jewish state, and I am proud of Israelis for claiming their land from arab occupation. Israel should be a perfect role model for other nations who's lands and national identity and religions have been hi-jacked by arab islamists. I see Israel the only nation who is actually doing something about the arab imperialists, most other nations only talk about the evils of islam.
There is a need for an international organization to join forces and reclaim all arab taken lands and return it to it's own people and to revive their cultures, languages and religions. Simply said, to undo the damages that arab islamists have done to humanity.

cheers.

[bush badee]

Mazdac wrote