| |
 |
|
|
Israel, the Conflict and Peace:
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions(November 2003)
Introduction
The Conflict·
Peace
Delegitimization and Antisemitism·
Basic Issues·
|
|
Introduction
Over the past three years, Israel has suffered from terrorist
attacks on an almost unprecedented scale. Its citizens have
had to live with the day-to-day fear of being blown up by
suicide bombers or shot to death by Palestinian gunmen. Over
900 Israelis have already lost their lives and many thousands
more were maimed or psychologically scarred for life.
The violent confrontation that exists since September 2000
is all the more tragic due to the fact that a peaceful settlement
was so close at hand immediately prior to the start of the
violence. Had the Palestinian leadership chosen the path of
negotiations and compromise at Camp David in the summer of
2000 Israelis and Palestinians would now be living side-by-side
in peace.
Although there has been international sympathy for the victims
of terrorism, Israel's inherent right to defend itself against
terrorist attacks has been called into question. Israel has
also been subjected to a world-wide campaign to delegitimize
its very existence. Moreover, certain basic issues concerning
Israel itself have been increasingly misrepresented or misunderstood.
This booklet provides Israel's viewpoint on some of the questions
that have frequently been raised regarding Israel, the conflict
and efforts to reach a peaceful resolution.
return to top
|
| |
|
Peace
|
| |
|
How can peace be achieved?
|
| |
|
Peace can be achieved only through negotiations to bridge
gaps and resolve all outstanding issues. For negotiations
to be possible and for them to have a chance to succeed, Palestinian
terrorism and incitement, supported by Arab countries, must
be brought to an end.
Israel has always been willing to compromise and all Israeli
governments have been willing to make major sacrifices for
the sake of peace. However, peacemaking requires concessions
and confidence-building measures on both sides. Just as Israel
is willing to address the rights and interests of the Palestinians,
Israel has rights and interests that need to be addressed.
When in the past, Israel met Arab leaders, like President
Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who spoke the language
of peace to their own people and were willing to take concrete
steps for peace, Israel reached agreements with them and peace
was achieved.
Only negotiations can lead to peace. Attempts by the Palestinians
and the Arab countries to compel Israel to accept Palestinian
demands or one-sided UN resolutions promoted by the Arab states
will not bring the parties closer to peace. UN Security Council
resolutions 242 and 338, which all parties in the region accepted,
provide an important outline for conducting negotiations on
a permanent settlement. Israel has also indicated, provided
certain important conditions are met, its readiness to implement
the measures of the Roadmap. But the Roadmap will work only
if the Palestinians fulfill their obligations, something they
have not even begun to do, especially when it comes to dismantling
the terrorist infrastructure and ending incitement, as required
in the first phase of the Roadmap.
Peacemaking requires the creation of a positive atmosphere,
one that is free of terrorism and incitement, and one that
promotes efforts to achieve mutual understanding. Israel had
on many occasions taken steps to help improve Palestinian
living conditions and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian
economy. Israel has made and is willing to make in the future
goodwill gestures as confidence-building measures - such as
easing restrictions by removing road barriers, lifting closures,
allowing Palestinian workers into Israel, and withdrawing
from Palestinian towns. Israel is ready to take these steps
provided that Israeli security is not harmed and that the
Palestinians do not respond with terrorism.
Positive steps taken by the Arab countries would also help
generate a positive atmosphere, as would re-energizing the
multilateral contacts and the Barcelona process, both of which
seek to promote regional cooperation. Positive movement and
cooperation on issues that affect the lives of all who live
in the region would contribute psychologically to tackling
the difficult political issues that need to be addressed and
resolved.
Finally, peace must mean the resolution of all claims and
the end of the conflict. Once a peace agreement is reached,
a new leaf must be turned and the relationship between Israel
and the Palestinians, as well as Israel's relationship with
all its neighbors must be put on a new footing, one characterized
by dialogue and cooperation, rather than by antagonism and
confrontation.
return to top
|
| |
|
How does Israel view the Roadmap?
|
| |
|
On May 25, 2003 the Government of Israel accepted the steps
set out in the Roadmap in the hopes that this initiative could
help achieve a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. However,
the Palestinians have yet to live up to their obligations
under the first phase of the Roadmap, primarily the "unconditional
cessation of violence."
The Roadmap is a performance-based guide that was formulated
by the members of the Quartet - the United States, the European
Union, Russia and the UN. Israel's acceptance of the Roadmap
was accompanied by comments that Israel considers integral
to its implementation. The United States committed itself
to fully and seriously addressing these comments. Moreover,
Israel attaches importance to President Bush's June 24, 2002
vision for achieving peace, as expressed also in the Roadmap.
In that speech, President Bush emphasized that achieving the
vision of two states living side-by-side in peace requires,
as a critical first stage, Palestinian reform and an end to
Palestinian terrorism.
Israel's acceptance of the steps of the Roadmap is yet another
expression of Israel's willingness to extend its hand toward
peace. Indeed the Government's decision reflects a readiness
to make profound compromises in order to end the conflict,
provided these compromises will not endanger Israel's security
in any manner. Furthermore, subject to security conditions,
Israel desires to contribute to the improvement of Palestinian
life and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy.
However, the Roadmap itself and Israel's willingness to move
forward require that the Palestinians live up to their obligations
at each and every phase. Of critical significance is the requirement
in the first phase of the Roadmap that the Palestinians undertake
an "unconditional cessation of violence" by dismantling
the terrorist infrastructure, confiscating weapons, and arresting
and disrupting those involved in conducting and planning violent
attacks on Israelis anywhere. The Palestinians must also end
incitement. By its own acceptance of the Roadmap, the Palestinian
Authority undertook an obligation to end terrorism and incitement
in the manner required by the Roadmap. Israel has emphasized
that these conditions are essential before progress can be
made on moving into the second phase of the Roadmap.
The Government of Israel considers its comments to the Roadmap,
along with the American commitment to address these commitments,
as key to the implementation of the Roadmap. In addition to
Israel's comments regarding the necessity of Palestinian action
against terrorism and incitement, the comments also state
Israel's non-acceptance of the Palestinian claim regarding
the return of refugees. In accepting the steps set out by
the Roadmap, the Government of Israel clarified that the resolution
of the issue of the refugees will not include their entry
into or settlement within the State of Israel.
return to top
|
| |
|
What is Israel's position on
a Palestinian state?
|
| |
|
Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians. While
this is an important aspect of Israel's position on the establishment
of a Palestinian state, Israel's security and other vital
rights and interests also play an important role. Under no
circumstances could Israel accept the establishment of a terrorist
state on its borders.
In his speech at the June 4, 2003 Aqaba Summit meeting with
U.S. President Bush and then Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas,
Prime Minister Sharon had the following to say about a Palestinian
state:
"Israel, like others, has lent its strong support for
President Bush's vision, expressed on June 24, 2002, of two
states - Israel and a Palestinian state - living side by side
in peace and security. The government and people of Israel
welcome the opportunity to renew direct negotiations according
to the steps of the roadmap as adopted by the Israeli government
to achieve this vision."
It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians
but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own
state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with
Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being
of Israel as a Jewish state. … We can also reassure our
Palestinian partners that we understand the importance of
territorial contiguity in the West Bank, for a viable, Palestinian
state.
In this same speech, Prime Minister Sharon emphasized that
"there can be no peace, however, without the abandonment
and elimination of terrorism, violence and incitement."
Not only is this a fundamental condition that has been stipulated
in detail in the first phase of the Roadmap, but without its
fulfillment, the establishment of a Palestinian state would
mean the establishment of a terrorist state along Israel's
borders, and that would be unacceptable.
Any discussion on the creation of a Palestinian state should
concentrate on the nature of that state. Its parameters, including
final borders, are to be negotiated between Israel and the
Palestinians. Other elements are also critical to Israel's
security. Efforts towards establishing a Palestinian state
must take Israel's rights and vital interests into account,
especially on matters of security, so that there can be peace
and stability in the region.
return to top
|
| |
|
Why is Arafat not a partner for
peace?
|
| |
|
At the start of the peace process between Israel and the
Palestinians in 1993, Yasser Arafat gave an explicit pledge
to abandon terrorism and to commit to the principle that the
conflict can only be resolved through negotiations. In the
ten years since then, over 1100 Israelis have been murdered
in acts of terrorism (over 900 of them since September 2000).
Arafat is directly to blame for this terrorism and for the
grievous damage the violence has done to the peace process.
In his letter of September 9, 1993 to Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat pledged that "the PLO renounces
the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" and
that 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."
The entire peace process had been predicated on Arafat's
promise. Regrettably, he decided to breach that commitment
and pursue a strategy of armed struggle. Palestinian terrorists
attacked Israelis even during the early years of the peace
process, despite the progress being made in negotiations.
Finally in September 2000, following Arafat's rejection of
the peace settlement offered by U.S. President Clinton and
Israeli Prime Minister Barak at Camp David in July of that
year, Arafat chose to intensify the violence, a decision confirmed
in statements made by Palestinian officials.
On December 6, 2000, the semi-official Palestinian daily
Al-Ayyam reported as follows:
|
| |
|
Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of
Communications, Imad Al-Falouji, confirmed that the Palestinian
Authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current
Intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this
in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself.
Mr. Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this Intifada
as a culminating stage to the immutable Palestinian stance
in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest
of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple
Mount."
|
|
Yasser Arafat's personal involvement in terrorism is clear.
Not only has he done nothing to stop terrorism, but he has
aided and abetted it, using it as a tool to pressure Israel.
Arafat has signed the checks that fund terrorist groups and
their activities, approved the smuggling of arms (as was so
dramatically seen with the arms shipment found aboard the
Karine A in January 2002), and shielded wanted terrorists
in his own headquarters. Significantly, Arafat's own faction,
Fatah (the Al-Aksa Brigades), and his special bodyguard unit,
Force 17, have actively engaged in terrorism.
|
Suicide bombing of bus no. 14 in center of Jerusalem (11 June
2003) |
| |
|
Since 1993, Arafat has used the language of jihad (holy war)
in many of his speeches and declarations. Consistently finding
excuses for terrorism (even while paying lip service to condemnations
of it) and by attempting to co-opt Hamas and other terror
groups (rather than dismantling them as required, for example,
by the Roadmap) - Arafat shows that he has no intention of
ending terrorism. Arafat has proven, time and again, that
he cannot be trusted, that his commitments are without value,
and that he will not deliver when it comes to his promises.
But, beyond that, Arafat has failed his own people. His rejection
of the offers and concessions made by Israel at Camp David
in the summer of 2000 blocked the fulfillment then of Palestinian
aspirations within the context of a peace agreement with Israel.
Nearly three years later, Arafat's undermining of Palestinian
Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) which led to Abbas'
resignation in September 2003 caused major damage to efforts
to advance the Roadmap that would potentially have fulfilled
international aspirations to promote the peace process. Moreover,
the rampant corruption within the Palestinian Authority, the
disappearance of millions of dollars and euros into the pockets
of Arafat and his cronies, and his refusal to carry out genuine
reform of the Palestinian Authority - demonstrate that it
is not the Palestinian people's interest that he has at heart,
but Arafat's interest.
Israel is prepared to negotiate with any Palestinian leader
who lives up to the Palestinian obligations and commitments
that are vital to a successful peace process, first and foremost
- fighting terrorism and ending incitement that nurtures hatred
and violence. For many years, Israel hoped that Arafat was
that kind of leader, but the last three years especially have
shown that he is not.
Israel has no intention of telling the Palestinians whom
they should choose as their leader. However, Israel has no
obligation to deal with one who has shown repeatedly that
he cannot be trusted and whose word means nothing. Israel
is interested in a genuine peace process with a partner who
will work for peace. Israel is not interested in a futile
and barren exercise that will ultimately yield nothing but
continued conflict and anguish. Israel desires a genuine partner
for peace. Arafat is not that partner.
return to top
|
| |
|
How does incitement harm peace?
|
| |
|
There is a direct connection between anti-Israeli and antisemitic
incitement and terrorism. The incitement and extreme anti-Israel
indoctrination that is so pervasive in Palestinian society
nurture a culture of hatred that, in turn, leads to terrorism.
The many attempts to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict
are known, not coincidentally, as the peace process. The transition
from a state of war to a state of peace is not the result
of just a one-time diplomatic act of signing an agreement.
Rather it is a process that continues over time, a process
that demands a mutual effort to change positions, values,
and the perception of the former enemy. It requires a transition
to a new paradigm, the creation of a new state of mind.
In a number of Arab countries and in Palestinian society
the struggle against Israel takes center stage, and the call
to destroy Israel has been at the core of their social-cultural-political
ethos. In some Arab societies, this situation prevails to
this very day. The Palestinians' vehement anti-Israel rhetoric
has had a crippling impact throughout the region on efforts
for peace. The intense coverage of the Palestinian perspective
of events and incitement from Palestinian spokespersons have
enflamed anti-Israeli sentiments in Arab countries, even influencing
many pro-peace Arab states to downgrade their ties with Israel.
Palestinian incitement causes violence in the short term,
while in the long term it reduces the chances for peace and
reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors.
|
|
The Palestinian education system, media, literature, songs,
theater and cinema are mobilized for extreme anti-Israel indoctrination,
which at times degenerates into blatant antisemitism. The
incitement to hatred and violence is pervasive almost everywhere
in Palestinian society: in nursery schools and kindergartens,
youth movements, schools, universities, mosque sermons, and
street demonstrations. This creates a culture of hatred and
violence, which in turn provides fertile ground for terrorism
and murder.
|
Brandishing toy guns at a Palestinian kindergarten graduation
ceremony |
|
Incitement against Israel has many faces. It begins by totally
ignoring the very existence of the State of Israel. The maps
in the schools and universities do not bear even the name
of Israel, nor a large number of its cities and towns. Beyond
that, the incitement extols the names and deeds of the suicide
bombers, names football teams after them, and holds the terrorists
up as models to be emulated. The incitement includes antisemitic
cartoons that use the same kind of motifs and imagery that
were used against the Jews during the Nazi era.
The question that must be asked is what kind of future does
the industry of incitement offer the next generation, which
is growing up learning to hate. Will that young generation
be capable of thinking in terms of peace, of good neighborliness,
of tolerance and compromise? Can Palestinian society create
the new state of mind that is needed for peace, which is more
than just signing a peace treaty?
One cannot ignore the intensity of the feelings that exist
on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East. Feelings
of deep anger and frustration exist on Israel's side as well.
But, there is a huge difference between feeling anger and
frustration, on the one hand, and promoting a culture of hatred,
on the other.
Unlike a large part of Palestinian society, Israeli society
sees peace as the noblest of goals, its highest of aspirations
on both the individual and national level. The desire for
peace, for calm and for the normalization of day-to-day life
is at the very center of Israel's being and culture. The thousands
of songs, books, artistic works, and articles that have been
written about peace in Israel, since the very establishment
of the state, are too numerous to mention. Peace is an important
core value, the greatest dream of every mother and father,
the embodiment of the Zionist idea which envisages Israel
living in peace and cooperation with all its neighbors.
There is no legitimate reason why Israeli children learn
about peace and coexistence in their schools, while in contrast
Palestinian children are learning to honor the suicide bombers
and jihad. Those who desire peace should educate for peace,
and not promote hatred and murder.
return to top
|
| |
|
What should be the Arab world's
role?
|
| |
|
Israel desires peace with all Arab countries. Moreover, the
Arab states have the potential to make an important and positive
contribution to the peace process as well as change the face
of the region for the better. But, for this to happen, they
must stop supporting terrorist activities. They must cease
incitement and antisemitic propaganda against Israel which
do nothing but generate further hatred and provide a fertile
ground for terrorism. The Arab world's policy of confrontation
towards Israel should be replaced by a policy of dialogue.
Palestinian and other terrorist organizations in the Middle
East receive support, including funds and arms, from various
Arab countries. Some Arab states, among them Syria, along
with Iran back the most violent and dangerous terrorist organizations,
such as Hizbollah. Syria hosts the headquarters and training
bases of several Palestinian terror organizations, including
Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This support must stop so that terrorism
can be brought to an end. Only then will peace efforts have
the chance to succeed.
In recent years, the most extreme forms of anti-Israel incitement
have been allowed to flourish in Arab countries, recalling
earlier periods of the Arab-Israel conflict. There is a proliferation
of antisemitic propaganda in mosques and in schools, in the
state media and in academia. This racist material, similar
to that used in ages past against the Jewish people - such
as blood-libels and the so-called "Elders of Zion"
- generates further hatred and provides a fertile ground for
terrorism.
|
|
While there are no illusions that the Arab states will agree
with Israel on the specific issues in dispute, they should
agree that resolving those issues will involve compromises
from both sides. Israel cannot be expected to accept ultimatums
or "take-it-or-leave-it" propositions, such as the
decisions of the Arab League's Beirut Summit in late March
2002, which were based on the Saudi initiative. Those decisions
stated, in effect, that peace would be made with Israel only
if Israel were to accede to all Arab demands and conditions;
Israel's rights and interests were totally ignored as was
the need for negotiations and compromise to resolve all outstanding
issues.
|
Leaders of Egypt, the U.S. and Israel clasp hands at Israel-Egypt
peace treaty ceremony
(26 March 1979) |
|
Israel believes that the way towards peace requires using
all appropriate venues for dialogue and working for regional
cooperation. The Barcelona Process (which envisages European-Mediterranean
cooperation) and multilateral talks on such subjects as water,
refugees, arms control, environment and economic development
should be reinvigorated. In this way, issues that affect the
lives of all who live in the region can be addressed. That,
in turn, would create a positive atmosphere that would enhance
efforts to resolve the difficult political issues of the peace
process.
President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan
showed real leadership in making peace with Israel. Countries
like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco (which also played a key role
in promoting peace) can contribute by showing the rest of
the Arab world the way to enter into peaceful and cooperative
relations with Israel.
return to top
|
| |
|
Delegitimization and Antisemitism
|
| |
|
Is anti-Zionism different
from antisemitism?
|
| |
|
Israel, as a democracy, is receptive to fair and legitimate
criticism. However, all too often Israel is singled out and
held up to standards not applied to any other state. Although
valid criticism of Israel has absolutely no connection to
antisemitism, some of the unreasonable condemnation has its
roots in antisemitic attitudes, often disguised as "anti-Zionism."
Just as in the past Jews were the scapegoat for many problems,
today there are attempts to turn Israel into an international
pariah.
"Antisemitism" is the name given to the form of
racism practiced against the Jewish people. Though the literal
interpretation of antisemitism would appear to denote hostility
to all Semitic peoples, this is a fallacy. The term was originally
coined in Germany in 1879 to describe the European anti-Jewish
campaigns of that era, and it soon came to define the persecution
or discrimination against Jews throughout the ages.
Hatred of the Jewish people is an age-old phenomenon, traditionally
associated with expressions of xenophobia and religious intolerance.
Antisemitism has taken different forms and used various motifs
throughout history. In modern times, it has been promoted
by extreme nationalistic and even racist ideologies. Severe
antisemitism exists in Arab countries today.
|
 Egyptian
version (1994) of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" |
 Egyptian
version (2001) of antisemitic tract "The International
Jew" |
|
Antisemitism reached its peak in the Holocaust. Over 6 million
Jews (one third of the world's Jewish population) were brutally
and systematically murdered during World War II.
Modern antisemitism in Europe, after being repressed for
decades, has erupted with renewed fury in recent years in
a new form: "anti-Zionism," or hatred of the State
of Israel.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish
people - an expression of their legitimate aspiration to self-determination
and national independence. The Zionist movement was founded
to provide an ancient people with a sovereign state of its
own, in its ancestral homeland. Israel is the modern political
embodiment of this age-old dream.
The goal of anti-Zionism is to undermine the legitimacy of
Israel, thereby denying the Jewish people their place in the
community of nations. Denigration of Zionism is therefore
an attack on Israel's basic right to exist as a nation equal
to all other nations, in violation of one of the fundamental
principles of international law.
Just as antisemitism denies Jews their rights as individuals
in society, anti-Zionism attacks the Jewish people as a nation,
on the international level. Similar to the use of "the
Jew" as a scapegoat for many a society's problems, Israel
has been singled out for disproportionate and one-sided condemnation
in the international arena.
Anti-Zionism is often manifested as attacks on Israel in
the United Nations and other international forums. Over the
years, many a meeting and event of the international community
has been exploited as an opportunity to condemn Israel - no
matter what the subject matter, no matter how tenuous the
tie to the conflict in the Middle East.
Moreover, it is no coincidence that the recent censure of
Israel in international forums and the media has been accompanied
by a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents in many parts
of the world.
As a nation dedicated to the principles of democracy, Israel
believes that criticism, whether by other nations or our own
people, is a powerful force for positive change. However,
there is a clear distinction between legitimate calls for
improvement and the attempt to delegitimize Israel by consistently
singling it out and holding it up to standards not applied
to other states. All this ignores the context in which Israel
must strive to survive in the face of violent attacks against
its citizens and, all too often, against its very existence.
return to top
|
| |
|
What is Holocaust
denial?
|
| |
|
The Holocaust was the deliberate and systematic attempt to
exterminate the entire Jewish people. Modern attempts to diminish
or deny this tragedy, unique in its scale, desecrate the memory
of its millions of victims.
In 1933, Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany and established
a racist regime, in which Jews were deemed to be "Untermenschen"
(sub-humans), not part of the human race.
After Germany instigated World War II in 1939, Hitler began
implementing his "Final Solution" to annihilate
the Jewish people. His forces concentrated the Jews in ghettos
and established labor, concentration, and extermination camps
to which the Jews were transported. Those deemed unfit for
labor were exterminated, while most of the remaining Jews
died of deliberate starvation and disease. Documents uncovered
after the war show that Hitler's aim was to exterminate every
Jew in the world.
|
|
During the six years of the war, 6,000,000 Jews - including
1,500,000 children - were murdered by the Nazis.Hitler's deliberate
annihilation of the Jews, carried out with chilling efficiency,
killed one-third of the Jewish population of the world.
|
 Photo
Dept.
Survivors of Buchenwald concentration camp |
|
This genocide was unique in scale, management and implementation.
It sought to destroy an entire people, wherever they could
be found, merely for being born Jewish. For these reasons
it was given a name of its own: the Holocaust.
|
|
Now, little more than fifty years later, many antisemites
deny that the Holocaust took place, or attempt to diminish
the tragedy by claiming that its scale was much smaller. Some
racists wish to cleanse Nazism of its evil stain. Others believe
the State of Israel was established to compensate the Jews
for the Holocaust; by denying that it took place, they seek
to deprive Israel of its right to exist. This is why Holocaust
deniers have much support in Arab countries. In fact, some
Arab leaders during World War II supported the Nazi plans
to annihilate the Jews, and some Arab voices have been heard
in recent times complaining that Hitler did not finish the
job.
In recent years, Holocaust denial has taken on a new facade.
Malicious haters of Israel from both the left and the right
wings of the political spectrum frequently equate Israelis
with the Nazis and the Palestinians with the Jews. Not only
is this an abhorrent blood libel aimed at delegitimizing the
very existence of Israel, it is an attempt to minimize the
Holocaust. By comparing the two situations, which absolutely
share no common ground, Israel is both immorally condemned
and the suffering of Holocaust victims is trivialized.
Holocaust denial, in all its forms, is a moral abomination
and it should never be tolerated. Only by remembering, documenting
and commemorating the Holocaust, can we ensure that nothing
like it will ever happen again to Jews or to any other people
on earth.
return to top
|
| |
|
Why has there been
a rise in antisemitic incidents?
|
| |
|
The campaign to delegitimize Israel has led to a sharp increase
in anti-Israel and antisemitic attacks worldwide. Increasingly,
the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic
attacks on Jewish targets has blurred.
Since the beginning of the violence in September 2000, Israel
has been subjected to a worldwide campaign of delegitimization.
It has been attacked in the media and international forums,
vilified by political leaders and intellectuals. It has had
its very right to exist questioned, as has its basic duty
to defend its citizens. Extremists on the left and the right
have joined together in their hatred of the Jewish State.
These attacks go beyond justifiable criticism, which Israel,
as a vibrant democracy, considers part of the legitimate discourse
of states. However, it is not legitimate to censure Israel
in a grossly disproportionate way, single it out and hold
it up to impossible standards not demanded of any other state.
The reasons behind this growing phenomenon are many. It is
closely connected to the ability of the Palestinians to market
their image as one of powerless victims. They have used this
perception to play on the sentiments of those who advocate
human rights (while the Palestinian leadership and terrorists
violate the most basic human rights of innocent Israeli victims
of terror and of their own people). Other condemnation is
more ideologically based, often advanced by those who are
willing to ignore all transgressions of totalitarian regimes,
no matter how egregious, yet criticize any defensive steps
taken by democratic states. Traditional antisemitic attitudes,
often cloaked as anti-Zionist positions, have also played
a role. Bias in the media has also been an important contributing
factor to the delegitimization of Israel.
These attacks on Israel's legitimacy have been accompanied
by physical attacks on Jewish targets the world over, including
in Europe. Antisemitic incidents have included bombings of
synagogues and Jewish schools, vandalism and desecration of
Jewish cemeteries, death threats and violence against Jews,
and unprovoked assaults up to and including murder. These
hate crimes directed against Jewish individuals and community
institutions are often disguised as "anti-Zionist"
actions.
|
|
The situation in the Middle East is even worse. Virulent
anti-Israeli rhetoric is commonplace and has intensified.
|
 Damage
after attack on synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia (Apr 11, 2002) |
|
Antisemitic and anti-Israeli myths, often perpetuated by
governments (such as in statements made by Syria's President
Bashir Assad and Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir), are
readily believed by large percentages of the region's population.
The relentless flow of outrageous and unfounded accusations
emanating from Palestinian spokespersons has greatly contributed
to the growing wave of antisemitism. One of the consequences
has been an increase in the attacks on Jewish targets in the
Arab world, leading to loss of life such as during the April
2002 terror attack on the ancient synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia
- 12 European tourists, 4 local Arabs and a Jew were murdered.
|
|
Israel is gravely concerned by the recent significant rise
in antisemitism that targets Jewish communities in Europe
and elsewhere. This should arouse the deep concern of all
civilized peoples. Israel calls on the governments of countries
where the scourge of antisemitism is spreading to take all
measures necessary to ensure the security of Jewish communities
- and to bring the perpetrators of these deplorable attacks
to justice. Antisemitic incitement - whether by individuals,
organizations or even the leaders of certain countries - should
be strongly condemned.
return to top
|
| |
|
Does the international
community treat Israel fairly?
|
| |
|
The State of Israel is part of the family of nations and
an active participant in international organizations. While
the United Nations has from time-to-time adopted resolutions
which would provide a fair basis for advancing peace between
Israel and its neighbors, much of the time the UN has taken
a biased approach against Israel.
Israel joined the United Nations as its 59th member on 11
May 1949. Since then, it has participated in a wide range
of UN activities and has actively contributed to UN organs
and international agencies devoted to health, development,
labor, food and agriculture, education and science. Israel
also plays a role in the work of non-governmental organizations
conducted under UN auspices, which deal with issues ranging
from aviation to immigration, from communications to meteorology,
from trade to the status of women.
Some UN resolutions have been of crucial significance for
Israel, among them Security Council Resolutions 242 (22 November
1967) and 338 (22 October 1973), which provide an agreed framework
for settling the Arab-Israel conflict. Over the years, the
UN has at times contributed to bringing about a cessation
of hostilities between Israel and its Arab neighbors by appointing
mediators, extending UN auspices to cease-fire and armistice
agreements, and stationing UN forces between the adversaries.
On the other hand, the UN has been often misused and turned
into a partisan battleground in the ongoing political campaign
carried out against Israel by its adversaries in the region.
The 21 Arab states, with the aid of Islamic countries and
the non-aligned camp, constitute an "automatic majority"
for hostile initiatives, assuring the adoption of anti-Israel
resolutions in the General Assembly and other UN forums.
Since the end of the Cold War and with the momentum gained
in the Arab-Israel peace process, a somewhat more balanced
approach began to be felt in General Assembly resolutions
regarding the Middle East. The General Assembly's 1991 repudiation
of its infamous 1975 resolution libeling Zionism as racism
is one such example. Israel has also been allowed to increase
its involvement in United Nations activities, due to its recent
limited admission into a regional group (although participation
in a regional group was uniquely long-denied to Israel).
However, the outbreak of Palestinian violence and terrorism
in late September 2000 and the ensuing three years has largely
reversed the positive trend. The Palestinian leadership, the
Arab member states and their supporters in the UN seek to
exploit the politically motivated unrest to their advantage
against Israel in the international arena. As in the past,
blatantly one-sided resolutions against Israel are often proposed
and adopted. At times, even international gatherings, like
the "2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" in Durban, have been
abused and hijacked to engage in antisemitic and extreme anti-Israel
bashing. Syria, a terrorism sponsoring state, has become a
member of the Security Council and seeks to misuse that forum
as another means to strike at Israel. Unfortunately, all too
often an appalling anti-Israel bias on the part of the UN
casts a dark shadow on its integrity and raises serious doubts
about its ability to contribute to the easing of tensions,
let alone play a constructive role in promoting a genuine
and fair peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
return to top
|
| |
|
Has the media been
fair in covering the conflict?
|
| |
|
The international media's coverage of the conflict in the
Middle East has in many cases been unbalanced, unfair and
biased against Israel.
The modern press, especially the electronic media, is a means
for conveying huge amounts of information to millions of people.
Commercial competition affects the way the media provides
speedy and concise information. This competition often leads
to a superficial and simplistic portrayal of a reality that
is actually complex and complicated, such as the one existing
in the Middle East.
The contradiction between the need to report about the complex
reality of the Middle East and the need to provide concise
information as simply (and even as superficially) as possible,
often results in a distorted, unbalanced and unjust coverage
of matters that pertain to Israel.
In many cases, the media tends to portray a complex situation
through black-and-white stereotypes, in which Israel is perceived
as playing the role of an "occupier" that is trampling
on the rights of the "occupied." This in turn automatically
leads to the distorted portrayal of Israel as the root of
all evil in the Middle East.
However, the reality is much more complicated than that.
Fairness requires that the reason why Israel came into control
of the territories should be examined, as should the fact
that ever since 1948, the Arab world has called for the destruction
of Israel, by whatever means possible. Unfortunately, this
reality, with its broad and profound ramifications, is difficult
to convey in a television report that lasts mere seconds,
or at most just a few minutes.
News coverage of the Middle East usually provides a momentary
snapshot of current events. Visuals can provide dramatic pictures,
but in most cases they provide little insight into the broader
circumstances in which the image was shown, indeed often taking
events out of their context.
The image of a Palestinian youth facing an Israeli tank is
a news story that stirs the emotions of the television viewers,
a story that sells well. But this imagery is a gross distortion
of the reality. In the picture the tank is seen as representing
the "cruel and powerful occupier," the embodiment
of a wrong that is supposedly the source of the Middle East
conflict. However, reality is much more complicated than an
image that captures a single moment - its before and after
unknown to the viewer. Furthermore, the picture and its accompanying
report generally say very little or nothing about the ongoing
Palestinian terrorism which is the sole reason for the tank's
being there in the first place. The media says very little
about the Palestinian terrorists intentionally operating from
urban centers. Little is shown about how the terrorists mingle
with the Palestinian civilian population, cynically using
children and other civilians as their pawns and shields behind
which they launch their attacks against innocent Israelis.
Very little if anything is said about the terrorists knowing
that the Israel Defense Forces will do all that is possible
to avoid harming innocent civilians, even at the expense of
endangering the lives of Israeli soldiers.
Another reason for the imbalance in the media coverage is
that on Israel's side the representatives of the international
press work in an open and democratic society, in which freedom
of the press and freedom of expression are guaranteed. The
international press in Israel has access to every news source
and to every opinion in the democratic political spectrum,
as it should be. In contrast, Palestinian society and the
societies in most of the Arab world have no freedom of expression,
no freedom of the press. The opportunity in those societies
to independently report events is virtually nonexistent, and,
consequently, the ability of the foreign press to provide
authentic, objective and credible reports is very limited.
In the past, there have been a number of known cases in which
the Palestinians threatened to harm foreign reporters who
sought to report events that might damage Palestinian interests.
Likewise, there have been cases in which the Palestinians
agreed to allow the press some "freedom" in doing
their work on the condition that the reports would correspond
to the views and message that the Palestinians wanted to convey.
The international media has severely criticized Israel for
restricting the freedom of movement of the Palestinians and
for the suffering of the Palestinians at roadblocks that were
placed in the territories by the Israel Defense Forces since
the outbreak of violence in September 2000. The scenes that
appear on television screens are indeed hard-hitting. They
show women and children waiting, often for long periods, for
security checks at the roadblocks. These reports show a situation
that is only part of the picture, for the most part ignoring
the context and the fact that the only reason for the roadblocks
being there is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from
reaching Israeli civilian populations. Also ignored is the
Israeli government's obligation to defend its citizens from
those who are on their way to blow themselves up and murder
innocent bystanders in cafes, buses, shopping malls and other
public places in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other Israeli cities.
Does the media's focus on the roadblocks give due consideration
to the right of Israeli civilians to live free from the threat
of terrorism and violent death? The answer generally is no.
One of the most prominent examples of the fundamentally biased
and unfair approach taken by much of the international media
was seen in its handling of the fierce battle between Israeli
soldiers and Palestinian terrorists in Jenin in April 2002.
A short time after the battle, most of the international media
hastily jumped to conclusions and described the battle as
an Israeli "massacre" of Palestinians. Israel was
also immediately accused of having destroyed the city of Jenin.
Israel was both tried and judged in the media, before even
the most basic facts were known. Most of the international
media swallowed hook, line and sinker the Palestinian propaganda
version of what transpired. Had they verified the facts the
media would have known that what was initially described as
a "massacre" was actually a battle in which 56 Palestinians
(the vast majority of them armed terrorists) were killed,
as were 23 Israeli soldiers. What was initially described
as the "destruction of Jenin" turned out to be a
battle in only a very small area (about 100 x 100 meters),
a tiny fraction of the entire city.
In the worst manifestations of media bias, particularly in
some political cartoons and some opinion columns, the language
and content vis-?-vis Israel have gone to an extreme. The
very legitimacy of Israel's existence is questioned and at
times even antisemitic stereotypes and symbols, similar to
those attacking the Jewish people in the past, have been used.
However, what has generally characterized the international
media bias is the double standard it uses towards Israel.
While as a democracy, Israel welcomes legitimate scrutiny,
the media relentlessly scrutinizes Israel, out of proportion
to any other western democracy. Totally and unjustifiably
ignored is the fact that Israel faces an existential threat
from a significant portion of the countries in the region.
These states, who have not yet reconciled themselves to Israel's
existence as a Jewish state, are themselves very far from
meeting even the most basic standards of democracy and freedom.
Moreover, while criticizing almost everything Israel does
in fighting terrorism, the international media has often ignored
the fact that other western democracies have used similar
or even harsher measures when confronting threats to their
national security and the safety of their citizens.
return to top
|
|
|