| More

10 Misconceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Friday, August 12, 2005

Compiled by Rasha Uthman*

Misconception: Disengagement Brings End of Israeli Occupation in the Gaza Strip

Israel has declared to the U.S. and the international community that it will withdraw from the Gaza Strip and evacuate four small settlements in the northern West Bank towns to facilitate the Peace Process and end Israel's control over Palestinians. However, the Gaza disengagement plan will not end the military occupation of the Gaza Strip and if not followed by significant steps in the West Bank, will not push the Peace Process forward.

Israeli officials admit that the intention of the Gaza withdrawal is to freeze the Peace Process: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process' this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. Indeed, disengaging from the Gaza Strip does not put an end to military occupation and is far from achieving a peace deal with Palestinians," said Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Although Israel will evacuate 8,000 settlers and its army from Gaza, Gaza will still be subject to military occupation and remain occupied territory. In accordance with the disengagement plan, Israel will retain control over land borders and Gaza's water and air space. Israel has full jurisdiction over Gaza's border crossings, including its border with Egypt. Additionally, Israel has expressed its right to reinvade Gaza at will.

In actuality, the disengagement plan "is part of Israel's long-term strategy to rid itself of as many Palestinians as possible while retaining as much Palestinian land as possible." It is being utilized to divert international focus from Israel's current appropriation of land from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the construction of additional Israeli settlements, and the completion of the Wall.

"The dismantling of settlements in Gaza, does not, however, mean that Gaza will be freed from Israeli control or that Israel will cease to be an occupying Power in terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Gaza at the present is a prison, with walls, fences, and soldiers to control its external borders, and with prison guards in the form of IDF soldiers who impose severe restrictions on the internal movement of Palestinian civilians and police the conduct of Palestinians within Gaza," reported John Dugard, Special Envoy for the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Misconception: The Wall is Necessary to Ensure Safety and Security for Israel

"The Israelis have claimed that it [the Wall] is purely a security measure, but we've made it clear that we have some concerns about some of the steps that were taken... We want steps to be taken to ease the plight of the Palestinian people. We have been deeply concerned about the conditions of life for the vast majority of Palestinians who seek peace and oppose violence," said White House Press Secretary, Scott McCellan.

Israel argues that the Wall is necessary to ensure security for Israeli civilians and to avert terror attacks, however, the route of the Wall reaffirms the notion that its purpose is to annex large amounts of Palestinian land while isolating Palestinians into closed zones creating dire humanitarian conditions and violations of basic human rights.

Eighty percent of the Wall has been constructed inside the Occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, severely restricting the movement of Palestinians. The areas outside the Wall, on the Israeli side, are the prime agricultural land, water aquifers, and other natural resources, all necessary for a viable Palestinian state.

Palestinians must apply for permits to access areas on the other side of the wall and to go to schools, hospitals, religious sites, and jobs in neighboring villages. The Wall has destroyed the economic, social, and developmental fabric of Palestinian life.

"The manner in which [the Wall] has been built - largely on Palestinian territory - cannot, however, be justified on security grounds. The building of the Wall, in such a way that it separates farmers from their land, isolates villages from employment, schools and health care, brings settlers within the de facto borders of Israel and confirms the unlawful annexation of East Jerusalem, suggest that the main purpose of the Wall is annexation, albeit by de facto means, of additional land for the State of Israel," reported John Dugard, Special Envoy for the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Misconception: Israeli Settlements are Legal Neighborhoods

"My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the Administered Territories contradicts the express order of the Fourth Geneva Accord," excerpt from an Israeli Foreign Ministry report, 1967.

According to Israeli officials, settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not illegal because they are built on state-owned or "absentee" Palestinian land. Moreover, due to Israel's unilateral expansion of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries and the annexation of land in East Jerusalem neighborhoods, Israel considers settlements built in East Jerusalem to be neighborhoods and not illegal establishments.

However, according to international law, Israel settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem are illegal and must be dismantled. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention indisputably states "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 states areas occupied in 1967 are occupied territory. Those areas are the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

Additionally, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980 declared that "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants" in the Occupied Palestinian territories causes " a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East." Resolution 465 instructs Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction of planning of settlements in Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem."

According to Israel's Peace Now group, there are over 145 Israeli settlements, which contain 230,000 settlers, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Settlements, which are built on confiscated Palestinian land, are linked to each other and Israel through Jewish-only by-pass roads, which are constructed on privately owned Palestinian land and intended for the restricted use of Israelis. By-pass roads are intended to make travel safer and convenient for settlers and viewed as a means to make settlements more appealing to potential Israeli residents. Moreover, settlements and bypass roads prevent the natural development and growth of Palestinian communities. They also restrict Palestinians' freedom of movement through the creation of barriers, checkpoints and permanent blocs of Israeli control.

Settlements prevent Palestinians from accessing natural resources, including major water aquifers and agricultural land, due to their strategic location.

Additionally, settlement establishments are causing serious environment consequences for Palestinian villages. Israel has failed to build sewage treatment facilities, thus allowing sewage to flow into valleys and create agricultural and health concerns for Palestinians.

Misconception: West Bank and Gaza are "Disputed"

Israel argues that the Palestinian territories are "disputed" and not occupied. It believes that the application of the term "occupied" to the Palestinian Territories prevents Israel from having any claim to the land.

Furthermore, many Israeli officials claim that the Palestinian territories were not under legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War in 1967.

However, the West Bank and Gaza were under the jurisdiction of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments. All civil affairs in the West Bank were administered by Jordan and all civil affairs in Gaza were administered by Egypt. In actuality, Jordan did not relinquish its ties to the West Bank until 1988 and maintained authority over numerous Palestinian matters such as the oversight of the education system and the management of religious sites in Jerusalem.

Although Israel would like to interpret the legal premise of the status of the Territories, the international community has reiterated that the Palestinian territories are indeed occupied and not disputed. Both UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which Israel has accepted, mandates that Israel must annul its acquisition of territories it occupied in 1967 if it wants security and peace.

Moreover, since 1967, Israel has applied military rather than civil law to the Palestinian territories. If the Territories were disputed, Israel would be unable to use military force throughout the Territories.

Misconception: Palestinians Do Not Want Peace

Israeli and U.S. officials argue that the Palestinian leadership has not taken the necessary steps needed to achieve pace.

The Road Map, the latest U.S. backed peace plan, provides a framework to end Israel's military occupation of Palestinian territory and the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state. It outlines requirements for both Palestinians and Israel to be achieved simultaneously.

A simple overview of fulfilled Road Map obligations shows that unlike Israel, the PA has met almost all of its Phase One obligations under the Road Map.

Three essential obligations that the PA has fulfilled are a call for a Palestinian-issued statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security, "an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere," the consolidation of all Palestinian security organizations into three services that report to the "empowered Interior Minister," and the restructuring of security services to confront terror, such as the collection of weapons.

Israel has yet to accept the Road Map as a whole; it acknowledges certain steps of the document but refuses to recognize the outcome of the Road Map.

Misconception: Barak Gives Generous Offer to Arafat at Camp David

Immediately following the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israeli and American officials blamed Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for rejecting a "generous offer" that would have resulted in an independent Palestinian state comprised of 95 percent of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

However, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's "generous offer" would not have resulted in a viable and independent Palestinian state, a necessary requirement for lasting peace. Israel's Camp David proposal divided the Palestinian territory into four separate areas surrounded by Israeli settlements, settler-only roads, and military installations. Barak demanded the immediate annexation of 9 percent of the West Bank and continued control over an additional 10 percent. Furthermore, 85 percent of Israel's settler population would be annexed to Israel, all in exchange for 1 percent of Israel-owned land. Only 80 percent of the West Bank (17.6 percent of historic Palestine) would have been left to Palestinians.

Additionally, land that would be annexed to Israel includes the largest source of water for Palestinians, the Western Aquifer, thus denying Palestinians access to their water resources as well as sovereignty over their borders and airspace.

Barak's offer would preserve significant military control over East Jerusalem and the Occupied Palestinian Territories for Israeli security reasons which would interfere with the notion of an independent Palestinian state and reinforce the military occupation of Palestinian land. Even though Palestinians would have been given jurisdiction over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem, Israel would continue to maintain its sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif compound (also known as the Temple Mount), the third holiest site in Islam.

Barak stated that Israel assumes no responsibility for Palestinian refugees or the solution to the refugee problem. Under Barak's plan, Palestinian refugees would have been denied the Right of Return to their homes in Israel. Barak agreed on compensation to Palestinian refugees on the premise that it be paid for through a fund established by the international community and not Israel and would include compensation for Jews who left Arab countries.

Robert Malley, a former Clinton administration advisor and participant at the Camp David Summit, admitted in 2001 that, "what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past...but it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective."

Misconception: Arafat Started the Intifada

Israeli officials accused Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA) of initiating violence in September 2000 as a form of backlash against the failed Camp David Summit and to pressure Israel through violence to make concessions.

In 2001, the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-finding Committee, headed by former US Senator George Mitchell, found no evidence that linked Arafat or the PA to the outbreak of the intifada: "Neither were we provided with evidence that the PA planned the uprising... We have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity...."

U.S. officials were aware that conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were on the brink of explosion prior the Camp David Summit. Economic conditions were dire due to a system of checkpoints and closure, settlement expansion increased dramatically, engulfing Palestinian land stated for the Palestinian state, and a May 1999 deadline for freedom and Palestinian statehood was missed.

Furthermore, Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, the third holiest site in Islam, on 28 September 2000, triggered an emotional response from worshippers who threw shoes and stones to prevent Sharon from entering the mosque. In a show of military might, armed to reinforce Israel's control over the area, Sharon was accompanied by 1,000 armed Israeli soldiers during his visit. With emotions still high the next day, Palestinian worshippers clashed with Israel police after Friday prayer and five Palestinians were killed.

News of the killings at the Al-Aqsa Mosque spread quickly throughout the territories promoting demonstrations. Israel reacted with excessive forced leading to more Palestinian casualties. The cycle of violence became known as the Al-Aqsa intifada or the second intifada, against Israeli occupation.

Misconception: Palestinians Have Not Recognized Israel's Right to Exist

Israeli and U.S. officials have accused the Palestinian leadership of not recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security.

On 18 November 1988 at the 19th session of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) at Algiers, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) declared its readiness to enter peace negotiations with Israel in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which includes the following principle: the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

On 14 December 1988, the day after his UN address in Geneva, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat proclaimed the existence of Israel and renounced terrorism.

In 1993, four days prior to the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, Arafat wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reiterating his recognition of Israel, denouncing violence, and declaring support for the termination of clauses unacceptable to Israel in the PLO Charter.

On 14 December 1998, with U.S. President Bill Clinton in attendance, the PNC voted to annul the portions of its charter which denied Israel's right to exist.

Misconception: Palestine was a Land without a People

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist," said Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in 1969.

However, member of the Zionist Organization, Leo Motzkin reported at the Second Zionist Congress in 1898 that although completely accurate statistics about the number of inhabitants did not exist at the time "one must admit that the density of the population does not give the visitor much cause for cheer. In whole stretches throughout the land one constantly comes across large Arab villages, and it is an established fact that the most fertile areas of our country are occupied by Arabs'"

British Mandate documents and Jewish references show that in 1948 there were at least 1,113 Arab Palestinian towns and villages, compared to 183 Jewish settlements. In that same year, 675 Arab Palestinian villages were depopulated and 935,000 Arab Palestinians became refugees.

After the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, Jewish leaders gained control of about 2,700 elements of the British Mandate's high-quality infrastructure, which included 624,000 miles of railroads, 41 railway stations, 31 airports, 33 hospitals, 14 post offices, 99 police stations, 37 military camps, 350 schools, 1,984 Christian and Muslim structures, and 3,649 sources of water.

Arab Palestinians refused to accept the Partition Plan (United Nations Resolution 181, 1947) because Jews, who only owned 5.4 percent of the land, would have been given 55 percent of the land. By 1948, Jews only constituted 32 percent of the total population.

Jewish leaders "got an instant gift" by way of "a land emptied of its people but not its infrastructure," said Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, founder and president of the London-based Palestine Land Society.

Misconception: Israel is Not Responsible for Palestinian Refugees

Israel refuses to acknowledge United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (December 1948) on the basis that it is not responsible for the creation of the refugee crisis and cannot be held liable for the restitution of, nor allow the return of Palestinian refugees.

UN Resolution 194 declares that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date."

"Under the laws of nationality and state succession, newly-created states are obligated to grant all persons found within the territory the nationality of the new state, and are forbidden from arbitrarily denationalizing or expelling persons found therein on the basis of race, religion or ethnic origin. Residents expelled during conflict are also entitled to return to their places of habitual residence under these laws," stated Susan Akram, associate professor of law at Boston University.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to leave and return to their place of origin.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) reaffirms "the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted."

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 52/62 (1997) states that Palestinians are entitled to their property and to the income derived from it.

When Zionist leaders declared the State of Israel in 1948, 935,000 Palestinians were expelled or forced to flee their homes when war broke out to neighboring countries and 40,000 Palestinians were internally displaced within the new state of Israel. Following the Six Day War in 1967, many Palestinians were displaced for the second time and an additional 200,000 Palestinians became refugees.

Palestinians represent the largest single group of refugees in the world and one in every three refugees is Palestinian. Less than 1 percent of Palestinian refugees has been able to return to their homes.

This information brief was compiled and written by Palestine Center intern Rasha Uthman, a student at Emory University, as the culmination of her summer research project. The views expressed within are hers alone and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund or its educational program, The Palestine Center. This brief may be used without permission if credit is given.

Return to Homepage