Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 31   1  2  Next >>   
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:21

Level 54
by Jeremy R. Hammond

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the founding editor of the Foreign Policy Journal. The Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues

Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.

After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British Shaw Commission report noted that “In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.” Representatives from all sides of the emerging conflict testified to the commission that prior to the First World War, “the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine.” The problem was that “The Arab people of Palestine are today united in their demand for representative government”, but were being denied that right by the Zionists and their British benefactors.

The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. “It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. “The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.”

Edited 8/25/2014 01:04:06
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:26

Level 54
Myth #2 – The United Nations created Israel.

The U.N. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. To that end, they requested that the U.N. take up the matter.

As a result, a U.N. Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created to examine the issue and offer its recommendation on how to resolve the conflict. UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country and in the end issued a report that explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish.

The U.N. General Assembly endorsed UNSCOP’s in its Resolution 181. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. All such claims are absolutely false.

Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a recommendation. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not.

Moreover, General Assembly resolutions are not considered legally binding (only Security Council resolutions are). And, furthermore, the U.N. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:04:49
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:29

Level 54
Myth #3 – The Arabs missed an opportunity to have their own state in 1947.

The U.N. recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state. But characterizing this as an “opportunity” for the Arabs is patently ridiculous. The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.

First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).

Additionally, land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation.

Yet, despite these facts, the U.N. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”. The truth is that no Arab could be reasonably expected to accept such an unjust proposal. For political commentators today to describe the Arabs’ refusal to accept a recommendation that their land be taken away from them, premised upon the explicit rejection of their right to self-determination, as a “missed opportunity” represents either an astounding ignorance of the roots of the conflict or an unwillingness to look honestly at its history.

It should also be noted that the partition plan was also rejected by many Zionist leaders. Among those who supported the idea, which included David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a “Jewish State” – something which could be finally accomplished later through force of arms.

When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”. Partition should be accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine”. The Jewish State would then “have to preserve order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if necessary.”

Edited 8/25/2014 01:05:33
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:32

Level 54
Myth #4 – Israel has a “right to exist”.

The fact that this term is used exclusively with regard to Israel is instructive as to its legitimacy, as is the fact that the demand is placed upon Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”, while no similar demand is placed upon Israelis to recognize the “right to exist” of a Palestinian state.

Nations don’t have rights, people do. The proper framework for discussion is within that of the right of all peoples to self-determination. Seen in this, the proper framework, it is an elementary observation that it is not the Arabs which have denied Jews that right, but the Jews which have denied that right to the Arabs. The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact.

As already noted, Israel was not created by the U.N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israel’s existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new state’s borders. In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land – it now belonged to the Jews. In an instant, the Zionists had declared that the majority Arabs of Palestine were now second-class citizens in the new “Jewish State”.

The Arabs, needless to say, did not passively accept this development, and neighboring Arab countries declared war on the Zionist regime in order to prevent such a grave injustice against the majority inhabitants of Palestine.

It must be emphasized that the Zionists had no right to most of the land they declared as part of Israel, while the Arabs did. This war, therefore, was not, as is commonly asserted in mainstream commentary, an act of aggression by the Arab states against Israel. Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population. The act of aggression was the Zionist leadership’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists’ use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.

In the course of the war that ensued, Israel implemented a policy of ethnic cleansing. 700,000 Arab Palestinians were either forced from their homes or fled out of fear of further massacres, such as had occurred in the village of Deir Yassin shortly before the Zionist declaration. These Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their homes and land, despite it being internationally recognized and encoded in international law that such refugees have an inherent “right of return”.

Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U.S., to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land. It is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to ethnically cleanse Palestine, while Arabs had no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own homes, on their own land.

The constant use of the term “right to exist” in discourse today serves one specific purpose: It is designed to obfuscate the reality that it is the Jews that have denied the Arab right to self-determination, and not vice versa, and to otherwise attempt to legitimize Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, both historical and contemporary.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:06:15
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:36

Level 54
Myth #5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973

The fact of the matter is that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the “Six Day War”. Early on the morning of June 5, Israel launched fighters in a surprise attack on Egypt (then the United Arab Republic), and successfully decimated the Egyptian air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.

It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. Yet there was none.

It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U.N. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat.

Yet, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.

It must be kept in mind that Egypt had been the victim of aggression by the British, French, and Israelis in the 1956 “Suez Crisis”, following Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. In that war, the three aggressor nations conspired to wage war upon Egypt, which resulted in an Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Under U.S. pressure, Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1957, but Egypt had not forgotten the Israeli aggression.

Moreover, Egypt had formed a loose alliance with Syria and Jordan, with each pledging to come to the aid of the others in the event of a war with Israel. Jordan had criticized Nasser for not living up to that pledge after the Israeli attack on West Bank village of Samu the year before, and his rhetoric was a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world.

That Nasser’s positioning was defensive, rather than projecting an intention to wage an offensive against Israel, was well recognized among prominent Israelis. As Avraham Sela of the Shalem Center has observed, “The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser’s defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged that “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.

General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”

General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”

Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”

Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

In 1973, in what Israelis call the “Yom Kippur War”, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake the Sinai and the Golan Heights, respectively. This joint action is popularly described in contemporaneous accounts as an “invasion” of or act of “aggression” against Israel.

Yet, as already noted, following the June ’67 war, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 242 calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel, needless to say, refused to do so and has remained in perpetual violation of international law ever since.

During the 1973 war, Egypt and Syria thus “invaded” their own territory, then under illegal occupation by Israel. The corollary of the description of this war as an act of Arab aggression implicitly assumes that the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip were Israeli territory. This is, needless to say, a grossly false assumption that demonstrates the absolutely prejudicial and biased nature of mainstream commentary when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

This false narrative fits in with the larger overall narrative, equally fallacious, of Israeli as the “victim” of Arab intransigence and aggression. This narrative, largely unquestioned in the West, flips reality on its head.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:06:53
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:41

Level 54
Myth #6 – U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 called only for a partial Israeli withdrawal.

Resolution 242 was passed in the wake of the June ’67 war and called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” While the above argument enjoys widespread popularity, it has no merit whatsoever.

The central thesis of this argument is that the absence of the word “the” before “occupied territories” in that clause means not “all of the occupied territories” were intended. Essentially, this argument rests upon the ridiculous logic that because the word “the” was omitted from the clause, we may therefore understand this to mean that “some of the occupied territories” was the intended meaning.

Grammatically, the absence of the word “the” has no effect on the meaning of this clause, which refers to “territories”, plural. A simple litmus test question is: Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the ’67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory. Such territories include the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

The French version of the resolution, equally authentic as the English, contains the definite article, and a majority of the members of the Security Council made clear during deliberations that their understanding of the resolution was that it would require Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied territories.

Additionally, it is impossible to reconcile with the principle of international law cited in the preamble to the resolution, of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. To say that the U.N. intended that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of this cited principle.

One could go on to address various other logical fallacies associated with this frivolous argument, but as it is absurd on its face, it would be superfluous to do so.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:08:05
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:45

Level 54
Myth #7 – Israeli military action against its neighbors is only taken to defend itself against terrorism.

The facts tell another story. Take, for instance, the devastating 1982 Israeli war on Lebanon. As political analyst Noam Chomsky extensively documents in his epic analysis “The Fateful Triangle”, this military offensive was carried out with barely even the thinnest veil of a pretext.

While one may read contemporary accounts insisting this war was fought in response to a constant shelling of northern Israeli by the PLO, then based in Lebanon, the truth is that, despite continuous Israeli provocations, the PLO had with only a few exceptions abided by a cease-fire that had been in place. Moreover, in each of those instances, it was Israel that had first violated the cease-fire.

Among the Israeli provocations, throughout early 1982, it attacked and sank Lebanese fishing boats and otherwise committed hundreds of violations of Lebanese territorial waters. It committed thousands of violations of Lebanese airspace, yet never did manage to provoke the PLO response it sought to serve as the casus belli for the planned invasion of Lebanon.

On May 9, Israel bombed Lebanon, an act that was finally met with a PLO response when it launched rocket and artillery fire into Israel.

Then a terrorist group headed by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in London. Although the PLO itself had been at war with Abu Nidal, who had been condemned to death by a Fatah military tribunal in 1973, and despite the fact that Abu Nidal was not based in Lebanon, Israel cited this event as a pretext to bomb the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, killing 200 Palestinians. The PLO responded by shelling settlements in northern Israel. Yet Israel did not manage to provoke the kind of larger-scale response it was looking to use as a casus belli for its planned invasion.

As Israeli scholar Yehoshua Porath has suggested, Israel’s decision to invade Lebanon, far from being a response to PLO attacks, rather “flowed from the very fact that the cease-fire had been observed”. Writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Porath assessed that “The government’s hope is that the stricken PLO, lacking a logistic and territorial base, will return to its earlier terrorism…. In this way, the PLO will lose part of the political legitimacy that it has gained … undercutting the danger that elements will develop among the Palestinians that might become a legitimate negotiating partner for future political accommodations.”

As another example, take Israel’s Operation Cast Lead from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. Prior to Israel’s assault on the besieged and defenseless population of the Gaza Strip, Israel had entered into a cease-fire agreement with the governing authority there, Hamas. Contrary to popular myth, it was Israel, not Hamas, who ended the cease-fire.

The pretext for Operation Cast Lead is obligatorily described in Western media accounts as being the “thousands” of rockets that Hamas had been firing into Israel prior to the offensive, in violation of the cease-fire.

The truth is that from the start of the cease-fire in June until November 4, Hamas fired no rockets, despite numerous provocations from Israel, including stepped-up operations in the West Bank and Israeli soldiers taking pop-shots at Gazans across the border, resulting in several injuries and at least one death.

On November 4, it was again Israel who violated the cease-fire, with airstrikes and a ground invasion of Gaza that resulted in further deaths. Hamas finally responded with rocket fire, and from that point on the cease-fire was effectively over, with daily tit-for-tat attacks from both sides.

Despite Israel’s lack of good faith, Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire from the time it was set to officially expire in December. Israel rejected the offer, preferring instead to inflict violent collective punishment on the people of Gaza.

As the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center noted, the truce “brought relative quiet to the western Negev population”, with 329 rocket and mortar attacks, “most of them during the month and a half after November 4″, when Israel had violated and effectively ended the truce. This stands in remarkable contrast to the 2,278 rocket and mortar attacks in the six months prior to the truce. Until November 4, the center also observed, “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.”

If Israel had desired to continue to mitigate the threat of Palestinian militant rocket attacks, it would have simply not ended the cease-fire, which was very highly effective in reducing the number of such attacks, including eliminating all such attacks by Hamas. It would not have instead resorted to violence, predictably resulting in a greatly escalated threat of retaliatory rocket and mortar attacks from Palestinian militant groups.

Moreover, even if Israel could claim that peaceful means had been exhausted and that a resort military force to act in self-defense to defend its civilian population was necessary, that is demonstrably not what occurred. Instead, Israel deliberately targeted the civilian population of Gaza with systematic and deliberate disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks on residential areas, hospitals, schools, and other locations with protected civilian status under international law.

As the respected international jurist who headed up the United Nations investigation into the assault, Richard Goldstone, has observed, the means by which Israel carried out Operation Cast Lead were not consistent with its stated aims, but was rather more indicative of a deliberate act of collective punishment of the civilian population.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:08:45
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:49

Level 54
Myth #8 – God gave the land to the Jews, so the Arabs are the occupiers.

No amount of discussion of the facts on the ground will ever convince many Jews and Christians that Israel could ever do wrong, because they view its actions as having the hand of God behind it, and that its policies are in fact the will of God. They believe that God gave the land of Palestine, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to the Jewish people, and therefore Israel has a “right” to take it by force from the Palestinians, who, in this view, are the wrongful occupiers of the land.

But one may simply turn to the pages of their own holy books to demonstrate the fallaciousness of this or similar beliefs. Christian Zionists are fond of quoting passages from the Bible such as the following to support their Zionist beliefs:

“And Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: ‘Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are – northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants could also be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you.” (Genesis 13:14-17)

“Then Yahweh appeared to him and said: ‘Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. Dwell in the land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father.” (Genesis 26: 1-3)

“And behold, Yahweh stood above it and said: ‘I am Yahweh, God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants.” (Genesis 28:13)

Yet Christian Zionists conveniently disregard other passages providing further context for understanding this covenant, such as the following:

“You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out.” (Leviticus 20:22)

“But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments … but break My covenant … I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it. I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste … You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.” (Leviticus 26: 14, 15, 32-33, 28)

“Therefore Yahweh was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone…. So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, as it is to this day.” (2 Kings 17:18, 23)

“And I said, after [Israel] had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.” (Jeremiah 3: 7-8)

Yes, in the Bible, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, told the Hebrews that the land could be theirs – if they would obey his commandments. Yet, as the Bible tells the story, the Hebrews were rebellious against Yahweh in all their generations.

What Jewish and Christian Zionists omit from their Biblical arguments in favor of continued Israel occupation is that Yahweh also told the Hebrews, including the tribe of Judah (from whom the “Jews” are descended), that he would remove them from the land if they broke the covenant by rebelling against his commandments, which is precisely what occurs in the Bible.

Thus, the theological argument for Zionism is not only bunk from a secular point of view, but is also a wholesale fabrication from a scriptural perspective, representing a continued rebelliousness against Yahweh and his Torah, and the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) in the New Testament.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:09:23
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:53

Level 54
Myth #9 – Palestinians reject the two-state solution because they want to destroy Israel.

In an enormous concession to Israel, Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution. The elected representatives of the Palestinian people in Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had since the 70s recognized the state of Israel and accepted the two-state solution to the conflict. Despite this, Western media continued through the 90s to report that the PLO rejected this solution and instead wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

The pattern has been repeated since Hamas was voted into power in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Although Hamas has for years accepted the reality of the state of Israel and demonstrated a willingness to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside Israel, it is virtually obligatory for Western mainstream media, even today, to report that Hamas rejects the two-state solution, that it instead seeks “to destroy Israel”.

In fact, in early 2004, shortly before he was assassinated by Israel, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said that Hamas could accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hamas has since repeatedly reiterated its willingness to accept a two-state solution.

In early 2005, Hamas issued a document stating its goal of seeking a Palestinian state alongside Israel and recognizing the 1967 borders.

The exiled head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mish’al, wrote in the London Guardian in January 2006 that Hamas was “ready to make a just peace”. He wrote that “We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights…. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms.”

During the campaigning for the 2006 elections, the top Hamas official in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas was ready to “accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] ’67″, a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.

The elected prime minister from Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, said in February 2006 that Hamas accepted “the establishment of a Palestinian state” within the “1967 borders”.

In April 2008, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas officials and afterward stated that Hamas “would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace”. It was Hamas’ “ultimate goal to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.”

That same month Hamas leader Meshal said, “We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.”

In 2009, Meshal said that Hamas “has accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders”.

Hamas’ shift in policy away from total rejection of the existence of the state of Israel towards acceptance of the international consensus on a two-state solution to the conflict is in no small part a reflection of the will of the Palestinian public. A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two-state solution.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:10:09
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 01:00:57

Level 54
Myth #10 – The U.S. is an honest broker and has sought to bring about peace in the Middle East.

Rhetoric aside, the U.S. supports Israel’s policies, including its illegal occupation and other violations of international humanitarian law. It supports Israel’s criminal policies financially, militarily, and diplomatically.

The Obama administration, for example, stated publically that it was opposed to Israel’s settlement policy and ostensibly “pressured” Israel to freeze colonization activities. Yet very early on, the administration announced that it would not cut back financial or military aid to Israel, even if it defied international law and continued settlement construction. That message was perfectly well understood by the Netanyahu government in Israel, which continued its colonization policies.

To cite another straightforward example, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate passed resolutions openly declaring support for Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, despite a constant stream of reports evidencing Israeli war crimes.

On the day the U.S. Senate passed its resolution “reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas” (January 8, 2009), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) issued a statement demanding that Israel allow it to assist victims of the conflict because the Israeli military had blocked access to wounded Palestinians – a war crime under international law.

That same day, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement condemning Israel for firing on a U.N. aid convoy delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza and for the killing of two U.N. staff members – both further war crimes.

On the day that the House passed its own version of the resolution, the U.N. announced that it had had to stop humanitarian work in Gaza because of numerous incidents in which its staff, convoys, and installations, including clinics and schools, had come under Israeli attack.

U.S. financial support for Israel surpasses $3 billion annually. When Israel waged a war to punish the defenseless civilian population of Gaza, its pilots flew U.S.-made F-16 fighter-bombers and Apache helicopter gunships, dropping U.S.-made bombs, including the use of white phosphorus munitions in violation of international law.

U.S. diplomatic support for Israeli crimes includes its use of the veto power in the U.N. Security Council. When Israel was waging a devastating war against the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the U.S. vetoed a cease-fire resolution.

As Israel was waging Operation Cast Lead, the U.S. delayed the passage of a resolution calling for an end to the violence, and then abstained rather than criticize Israel once it finally allowed the resolution to be put to a vote.

When the U.N. Human Rights Council officially adopted the findings and recommendations of its investigation into war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, headed up by Richard Goldstone, the U.S. responded by announcing its intention to block any effort to have the Security Council similarly adopt its conclusions and recommendations. The U.S. Congress passed a resolution rejecting the Goldstone report because it found that Israel had committed war crimes.

Through its virtually unconditional support for Israel, the U.S. has effectively blocked any steps to implement the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The so-called “peace process” has for many decades consisted of U.S. and Israeli rejection Palestinian self-determination and blocking of any viable Palestinian state.

Edited 8/25/2014 01:10:44
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 02:41:20

Level 4
What % of people of forum understand that English? What % understand that logic?

Edited 8/25/2014 02:44:25
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 09:07:24

Level 57
I read the first three ... I do not have the strength to read it all ... waiting for them to specify which mass immigration to Israel in the era of the British Arab Islamic countries illegally.
Arab immigrants came mainly after the Jews first wave of immigration began to dry up the marshes.
The establishment of the Jewish state area beach was hardly poor and they have declared war on illegal even though they are not with.
They have no connection to Israel Palestine, it was not a Roman general, and there has never been a Palestinian Arabs in Israel were the only ones it just before the British and Muslim nomads Bioroshliim.
They say Jerusalem is the religious capital Although not mentioned in the Koran, they say on their long history in Israel, but there are only 100 ~ years.
What is different from the Russians in Ukraine who demand independence? They are not a nation-state and have been the same Russian-Arab.
And all Jews agreed option and before the UN intervened in Hebron massacres was killed scores of Jews.
Israel was not true Arab-Jewish racism, religious hatred was Arab.
How you can see it in your country where you live only 30 years, and you have no history and religion to do with the place?
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 11:45:00

Level 55
I reed some of those and its all BULLSHIT israel alwalys have been threats by other nations terorisam racisam is just a little part of hamas and the neibour nations israel gave sini desart for peace israel almoust gave indepandence to palastine in 1995 but then lots of terorists interfear for no reason

israel is one of the oldest conturys and races in the world we lived in israel since 5000 years israel is ours palastinin ppl came 100 years ago in the ottoman times we only asked for our country back and the arabs with all the gold and oil said: ''hey why jews have a state?''suden 1949:''the arab legue will NEVER ally israel'' no reason to hate us we just protact ourself

1967:The arab nations disided that its time to kill us and with a great spy that discovered it we won! we saved our own nation

1973:The arabs wanted revange to gut back thier ''honor'' and killed over 2000 brave soldiers for NO reason at all

1979:EVEN after this arab revange we disided to make peace with egypt and the price was HEAVY return back sini desart full of oil anoar sadat is the 1 of 2 mulims ever that got novel prize (second was arafat same reason peace with israel) who got the nobvel prize becuse the peace meeting WE made can u belive this deadly killer of 1973 geting peace novel prize? unbelivebal.........

1982:lebnon is full of terorists that lanches missiles on israel for NO reason again israel diside to entar lebanon in order to clean it from terorists then leave it alone
sadly it didnt work out and one of the crazyest evil terorist orgnization was formed:hizbala

1994:peace with jordan (we disided)

1995:we almoust came to a peace agreemant and indepandace to palastine our prime minister in this time yzhak rabin was one of the peacefullest ppl in human history disided to shake hand with the leader of palastine arafat(a deadly killer head of a terorisam orginization)
in the fact we even GAVE palastine money and WEPONS this year can u belive it?? not only this mad killer got novel prize he got wepons and money WTF????

2006-presant:jews that lived in gaza strip have been attacked in 2006. the govermant diside to BENISH the jews from thier home in gaza strip gaza not only become independent we gave them tons of money this money was not for wepons it was for schools hospitels etc.
and hamas used them to build terror holes and buy wepons from katar and turky so since 2008-2014 we are under attack
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 11:49:02

Level 55
And if u want it in short ill say this: we are one of the oldest countrys in the WORLD we have been benish from our little nation in and in other nation we have been hunted and killed racisam Violence to jews and israel have begun 2000 years ago till today we are just a little nation who defend itself and cant give palastine (but want) indepandence we cant becuse of the terorisam we saffer every year
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 12:09:36

Level 55
See myhand, you can't reason with people like this. That's why they have to be killed.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 12:16:19

Level 57
You hate Israelis because they are stubborn? pathetically
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 12:42:38

master of desaster 
Level 64
well because of people like darkness, there will be no peace in the middle east. so mulva is right. kill yourself. i really hope he will understand someday, what's going on and what he writes is just ignorance.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 12:57:55

Level 57
Well Israelis not believe there will be peace ... whenever he agreement was always who will fight against us, it does not stop, and discouraging
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 14:22:37

Beren • apex 
Level 62
@myhand, i know we can all google it, but it would make sense to link to the article.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 14:36:56

Level 54

I posted it as thread because i realized most people dont look at the links iposted and just argue nonsense. This way they have to adress what is written here black and white before them.
But I am glad that there are people like you that investigate things on there own.

Edited 8/25/2014 14:37:06
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 14:38:05

Beren • apex 
Level 62
Oh, I understand why you did that. I'm just saying it would have been preferable to have done both.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/25/2014 17:14:45

Level 55
stfu master i VERY support peace and free of palastine but they blow our agreement everytime
u r the real fucking racist here
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/28/2014 20:25:14

Level 55




Or we could just keep playing warlight instead...

Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/29/2014 02:18:53

Level 54
A must watch on the conflict: Ilan Pappe

more in depth:

Edited 8/29/2014 02:34:50
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/29/2014 03:20:50

{rp} Clavicus Vile 
Level 55
Nice points, thanks Myhand. To be honest I think Darkness is just a Troll trying to make Israel look worse. It's hard to take any of that seriously.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/29/2014 12:23:22

Level 57
You jihadist L'Esophogas?
And any agreement with them destroyed
Why do you think the darkness makes a bad image to Israel?
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/29/2014 13:12:23

[UN] Choombi
Level 44
well, looks like i have to equip my sour armor to defend the actions of Israel, this sucks.
I'm not even a big supporter of my country's actions, the whole occupation of the west bank isn't particularly OK, the only motive of our actions in Gaza lately is to make hamas stop launching missiles at us, which is fine, but horribly selfish, because we are willing to leave these fascists(they ARE fascists, check their ideology) in charge so long as they don't bug us, why is this wrong? well,

1. Hamas are shockingly bad at running gaza, economically speaking, most of their expanses go to either curropt people, or terrorists.

2. BLOCKADE, ever since hamas got to power and said "Screw Oslo, were gonna start firing missiles at ya, kk?" Israel is blockading gaza, causing to have practically zero external trade with things that are not Israel or Egypt(and Egypt is blockading too, mind), and Israel doesn't want to remove them from power and end the blockade so less Soliders of ours will die, great, the 10x amount of Gaza citizens that will die because hamas will remain in power does not matter


but these aren't "ten false myths", these are "ten Anti-Israel rants", see the difference?

i'm not gonna go though everything, that will be boring, but more or less half of them(and in the wrong order)

Myth #3 – The Arabs missed an opportunity to have their own state in 1947.

yes, Arabs missed an opportunity for a state of their own, i view the whole thing as downright HILARIOUS, the UN offered a partition of Israel between Jews and Muslims, Jews agreed, Muslims refused, so we took half of the land that should have gone to the Muslims, could have been avoided if they said yes

Myth #4 – Israel has a “right to exist”.
fuck no, I'm not getting into that, that subject is completely bloody subjective, no facts, no absolute truth, this also goes for
Myth #8 – God gave the land to the Jews, so the Arabs are the occupiers.

Myth #5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973

half yes half no, 1967, hell no they didn't, that was our idea, totally an offensive war, if it was defensive it will take at least two weeks :P

1973...YES THEY DID, and they attacked us on a holiday, too :P, thats unfair game, if they could get to Jerusalem, then yes, they would destroy the state

on the subject, fun fact: Arab states never even tried to kill Israel, let's look at 1947-9
Israel fought Egypt, Jordan, Syria, bunch of other Arab nations, and WON, they obviously didn't seriously try, or we we would lose.
it's all just propaganda...sad, right?

Myth #2 – The United Nations created Israel.

holocaust survivors created Israel

Myth #7 – Israeli military action against its neighbors is only taken to defend itself against terrorism.

you are kidding, right? once again, THEY SHOT MISSILES AT US, NOT BLOODY NICE
may i note, they were shooting at civilians, their "holy war" is to disrupt innocent people's night's sleep, then people are surprised we hate them. also, we were in Lebanon to try to put a government that will, you know, not support people shooting missiles at us, and a democratic one at that.
one more note, Syria was trying to occupy Lebanon at the time for funsies, and when we stand a choice between Israel occupied Lebanon and Syria Occupied Lebanon, we take the first option

Myth #10 – The U.S. is an honest broker and has sought to bring about peace in the Middle East.

well USA attempts to "make peace in the middle east" are mocked, ignored, and largely disrespected by all sides, nobody gives a damn about them, really

done, thats my silly argument, unlike others, i don't claim my personal view on things to be a fact, let me sum up by saying this: this whole...thing, is a bunch of idiots from both sides who insist to not co-exist, those "bunch of idiots" are the majority, on both sides, self making truth
let it not be said i'm a traitor to my country...sort of...not really....ah nevermind

Edited 8/30/2014 06:47:29
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 8/29/2014 20:19:42

Level 54
Choomb, not the arabs are the fascists, its the Israel government and a ever growing part of Israels society. Most Israelis, much like the ones that posted here, live in a state of denial. They have no idea of what really went on and frankly, they dont really want to know. They dont want to face the unpleasant truths about the founding of their beloved country, they dont want to question the rightfulness of everything they have grown to be proud of.
It`s not an uncommon behaviour and its not particularily Israeli, but it doesnt change the fact that it is wrong, factual and morally. And it doesnt change the fact that the immense suffering of millions of innoncents due to this ethnic cleasing , mass murder and apartheid is continued every day.

because we are willing to leave these fascists(they ARE fascists, check their ideology) in charge

Yes, lets check the ideology of the zionists.

Look at this letter by Ben Gurion to his son, 1937, it clearly states the agenda and already gives a peak into a future yet to come:

My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.

When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.

We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy– agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.

read the whole letter here:

Israeli Myth:

1. Hamas are shockingly bad at running gaza, economically speaking, most of their expanses go to either curropt people, or terrorists.

Just another big Israeli propaganda lie. Not the Hamas is bad at running things in Gaza, its the policy of Israel to "keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge"

raw wikileaks documentation:

picked up by Haaretz:

Israeli Myth:

ever since hamas got to power and said "Screw Oslo, were gonna start firing missiles at ya, kk?.

Oslo peace process was sabotaged and put to halt by Israel not by Hamas. I linked information to this fact many times. There is no doubt about that by independent scientists, but maybe you need to hear it from your own president:

Concerning your other arguments, I provided proof for everything i wrote. I provide background information, video links, text links for you and everyone else to see. If you critise whatever information I give, back it up. Don`t repeat the Israeli mainstream propaganda without going into depth about the actual events. Its not only tiresome to read, its pointless and serves no purpose other than to deviate from the truth. As I said before, I personally believe that most Israelis dont even know most of this, since its very well shielded from their own eyes and they react aggressively in defense of their misconception of actual events. Unwilling to examine the sources that are provided and unwilling to possibly find something they would have a hard time dealing with.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 9/1/2014 17:20:30

Level 55
yes Ben gurion was racist on the arabs but it dosent mean he is the exmple of zionisam

zionisam is the reason we have our country back yes zionisam do belive in a jewish state but not only for the jews zionisam demand that jews will be the biggest amount in our country but zionisam created democrasy here arabs have rights just like jews here arabs even have 3 parties in israel

please dont see me as a racist here i hear lots of your insult to me i have arab friends here and i support palastine to be indepandent (but hamas have to be destroyed)

hamas wont stop attack israel and hurt its own ppl we are the only chance to save gaza's ppl our govermant may did some mastacks but its not fachist we have human right and democrasy that arabs can be voted as prime minister/president

i'm soory if i hurted some of u i know i'm not VERY smart i'm only 16 but i know that i want peace and israel is one of the greatest democrasies in the world and the only nation with human rights in the middle east a nation that protact itself and even try to save other nations.
Top10 Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 9/1/2014 18:09:55

The National Socialist
Level 54
israel is one of the greatest democrasies in the world
USA is one of the greatest Democracies in the world.*

Fixed it
Posts 1 - 30 of 31   1  2  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service