2, There is no Palestinian people
This argument, claiming the Palestinians are not a nation is pointless and irrelevant.

Even if the Palestinians don’t qualify as a “nation”, does it give Israel the right to oppress a civilian population for almost fifty years??
Does a big group of people with the same interest don’t have a right for self determination?
It is true that the Palestinian people were created by an arbitrary division of the Middle East by Great Britain and Frace around the year 1920, but it doesn’t lessen their right to live in the lands they used to live in.

 

3, Why were there terror attacks before 67?

One needs to understand that this Israeli-Palestinian conflict has two stages.
The first stage is the stage where the natives rejected the idea that immigrants from Europe would take over their lands under the Patronage of Great Britain.

The second stage began with the Israeli military rule over the Palestinians in 1967
the first stage of violence is no different from the violence that the Indian used against the European immigrants who came to America (for example-  Jamestown massacre of 1622).
This is where the resemblance between the two cases ends, whereas native Indians are equal citizens of the United States and they have the right to vote and be elected.

But!! If, as an hypothetic scenario, the Indians would live nowadays under US military rule that would start in 67, they would might use terror against U.S citizens, and some would say that there is no problem with the military rule, don’t you remember 1622?? It was way before the military rule in 67.

 

The notion of considering  the Palestinians as natives is well supported by the writings fo Ahad A’am in 1891 “truth from Eretz Israel”, Itzhak Epstein in 1907 “We forgot that in out sweer homeland there is a whole people who is clinging to this land for hundred of years, Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission from 1919 and in the well written essay “The Iron Wall” by Ze’ev Zhabotinsky from 1923:

  

"I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

 The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.

And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions  of  Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.

 Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators. 

This is equally true of the Arabs…. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies… Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised."

* Usually People tend to argue that The Palestinians are not the Natives of this land and Zionism is not a colonial movement.
It needs to be clear, trying to refute these notions won’t matter because the main question is “How did the Arabs at the beginning of the 20’s century saw the situation in real time, regardless if they were right or wrong.
** It is also worth mentioning that the Palestinians who did get equal rights and have a right to vote and be elected never rebelled against Israel and acts of terror almost doesn’t exists in their part.
Back to the head of the page

 

4, There’s no difference between Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Israeli cities inside Israel that were established over Palestinian villages.

All the territory inside what is called “the Green Line” is a sovereign Israeli territory. Every inhabitant who lives inside this territory has a full citizenship and all of the rights that comes along with it, including the right to vote and be elected and represented in the Israeli parliament.

On the other hand, the West Bank was never annexed to Israel and not an inch of this territory can be considered under Israel sovereignty.
Anyone who caught a glimpse of the west Bank map can see that the main goal of the Israeli settlements is to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. 

As Itzhak Shamir Said in 1992:

"I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years, 
and meanwhile we would have reached half a million people
in Judea and Samaria.’
When reminded that, judging by the results of the recent election,
there is no majority for a Greater Land of Israel. 
I didn’t believe there was a majority in favour of a Greater Land of Israel.
But it can be attained over time. 
This must be the historic direction.
If we drop this basis, there would be nothing to prevent
the development of a Palestinian state"

Back to the head of the page

5, There’s no Palestinian Partner for peace

It is true to say that the Palestinians said no to the offers made to them by Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008, but could it be that the offers made by the Israeli leaders weren’t sufficient?
Could it be that Israel never made an offer that made sure there would be a territorial continuity inside the West Bank for the future West Bank?
Just look what Condoleezza Rice said about Israel’s offer back in 2008:

 

"They made an offer – it’s not good, but it’s not bad.... Ariel is a problem, I told them – it protrudes down far into the Palestinian state."

 
First of all, it is important to mention that the Palestinians made an offer as well back in 2008, An offer which Israel rejected.

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4017957,00.html

 

Second, Accordind to an interview Made by Nahum Barnea in 2014

The Palestinians accepted these parameters:

• demilitarized state;

• Border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory;

• he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over.

• He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty,

• agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,'

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4515821,00.html
 

Third, according to another report made in 2016, The Palestinians negotiated with representatives of the Israeli Opposition party and achieved an historic agreement including all of the core Issues:

 

• Borders will be changed according to new facts made by Israeli settlements so there would be a land swap of 4% from the West Bank and about 70%-80% of settlers could stay where they are.

• Jerusalem will be divided considering changes made by Israeli settlements and the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall would stay under Israeli sovereignty.

• There will be a symbolic return of Palestinian refugees and some would be compensated.

Watch an interview with Gershon Baskin about this agreement (min 18)

http://10tv.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1194810

 

On the other hand, According to a report by Barak Ravid, in 2014 Itzhak Molcho, Netanyahu’s representative to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, thwarted every attempt to open a map and make the negotiation fertile.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/israel-peace-convention/1.2359763
furthermore, Netanyahu was caught on film saying he stopped the Oslo process and sabotaged it.
after that he was caught bragging about the way he knows how to play with the American people and shift them to his direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl60X_jOsR0
 

As Israelis, it is our responsibility to question OUR government and not to seek and blame the other side.

Back to the head of the page

 

6, They will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state

First of all, we are talking about an argument Netanyahu makes to avoid negotiations and play the game “who’s the peace refusnik”, a game he prefers over negotiating about the future of Israel’s border and the future of the Israeli settlements.

Even Arafat himself talked about the need for two states for two Nations. This is an unnecessary stubbornness that only harm the negotiation. Israel doesn’t need its Jewish character to be recognized, It needs its border and its sovereignty inside Israel’s territory to be respected and recognized.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/kerry-jewish-state-demand-a-mistake/
 

Four reasons why the Palestinians need to refuse to this demand:
 

1. It is not another country’s role to define Israel as a Jewish state.
   Which other country in the world was ever require to do so? Jordan? Egypt? 

2. About 20% of Israel’s population is non Jewish Arabs. It is not the PLO’s role to define them as second class citizens.

3. Due to the fact that former foreign minister and today’s defense minister has in his party’s platform the notion of annulment of Israeli-Arabs citizenship, there’s no reason that the PLO would strengthen his party.

4. Acknowledging that Israel belongs to the Jews is equal to denying ahead of any, even a symbolic, return of the Palestinian refugees though it is still one of the core issues that needs to be resolved in negotiation.
   
   Back to the head of the page

​

7, Where does it say that the Israeli Settlements are illegal??

 

The fourth Geneva convention, that is signed by Israel as well, is aimed to explain how does a country needs to interact with a civilian population which finds itself under a foreign rule due to a conflict or occupation. According to the convention, these people are considered as “protected persons”.

 

Article 4 states:
“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

There is an international consensus that the Palestinians are qualified as “Protected Persons” under international law.
Thus, as the Occupying country of these territories, Israel must Protect and make sure the Palestinians’ rights are protected and not harmed.

 

Article 49, paragraph 6, states:
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Which mean, every transfer of a civilian population from the state of Israel to the West Bank is forbidden by international law.

Article 49, like all the other articles, has an appendix explaining its meaning and reason.

 “It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race”

 

The reality that was created these past 50 years shows clearly that the Israeli occupation hinders the Palestinians welfare and economy due to movement restriction made by the Israeli settlements and, barriers and checkpoints. In addition, only Israel has access to natural resources and their distribution.
Anyone who saw the map of the West Bank and its division to A,B and C areas, can see clearly how the Israeli settlements are aimed to prevent unity between the Palestinian ”islands” (aka A,B territories) and thus preventing the Palestinian’s right for self determination.

Back to the head of the page

 

8, There’s no Occupation!
First of all, putting the legal status of the territory aside, there’s a matter of occupation of people. No one can refute the fact that million of people live under a foreign military rule which is being imposed on them for fifty years.
There’s an international consensus about the fact that the West Bank is considered as occupied territory. 

In 2016 a letter, which was classsified as top secret back in 1968 and was sent to the Israeli ambassedor in the USA, was revealed and it sheds a light on this argument.
Apparantly, the Israeli government knew all along that the Israeli settlements (and other actions made by Israel in the occupied territories) contradict the 4th Geneva convention. Due to this fact, Israel decided to define these areas as "not occupied" but "special" (sui generalis).
This way, Israel is free from any limitations put by humanitarian laws.
The letter states as well that the US government is not going to accept this argument, and this is why the amabassador is adviced to avoid speaking about the subject.

Since then, there were two major attempts in Israel to change this status:
 

In 1980, the Attorney General of Israel was asked
if it is possible to change the status of the occupied
territory so it won’t be called “occupied”.
He replied as follow: (pages 8-9)
 

1. If the foreign minister would decide to proclaim the territories as “not occupied”, this question would still stay a legal issue that needs to be decided at court.

2. In fact, the court had ruled in the past that the Law of War takes place in these territories, so this question is irrelevant.

3. If these are not occupied territories, so what are they?

4. Let’s presume these are not occupied territories and the Humanitarian law doesn’t apply there, how can one explain all the decrees and orders that were issued and were based on the laws that apply in occupied territories?
   (Since 1967, Israel found loop holes in the Laws of War to justify land grabbing).In other words, When it was convenient for Israel, the Israeli government exploited the fact that these territories are occupied.

5. Is it a declaration of intent that Israel is not going to fulfill its obligation to humanitarian laws in these territories?

6. Does it mean there would be no restriction on the Israeli army and its treatment towards the occupied population?

7. Doesn’t it contradict the peace agreement with Egypt which was signed in Camp David? (Menahem Begin agreed that an autonomy would be established for the Palestinians and the status of these territories would be determined in a negotiation)

 

The Second attempt to change the status of the occupied territories was made in 2012 in Edmond Levy’s report.
The Israeli government knows the real consequences of adopting this report, and that’s why Israel, despite its rightist majority, decided to bury this report.

Back to the head of the page

​

9, Israel needs the West Bank because of security reasons

It is true to say that Israel occupied the West Bank because of security reasons back in 1967, BUT!! The decision to stay and occupy the West Bank needs to be made BY THE ARMY!

From the moment Israel started to colonize the settlements in the West Bank, the decision to stay and occupy the West Bank and the Palestinian population became a political one, and not a security matter.
As long as we keep colonizing the Israeli settlements, one can not seriously claim that it is a security issue.
If the reason Israel occupies the West Bank was a security one, there were no settlements there, only military bases.
There are some who claim that without Israeli settlements inside the West Bank, the Israeli army would just leave the territories, thus risking Israel's security. This claim is not true, Israel proved in Lebanon for nearly 20 years , that if Israel thinks the army's presence is needed, it would stay in the territory even if there are no Jewish settlements.

And two other points I want to add on this matter:

1. Israel existed 19 years (1948-1967) without the West Bank, with a smaller army and without any Arab allies (unlike today when we have peace with Jordan and Egypt) and Israel survived.

2. The organization “commanders for Israel’s Security”, comprised of 217 retired senior officials of the Israel’s security agencies, say exactly the same thing. Keeping the West bank under Israeli control might lead to the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and on the other hand, Israel has an army strong enough to keep Israel’s security even without the West bank.

http://en.cis.org.il/

Back to the head of the page

​

10, Look what happened after Israel signed the Oslo accords
 

The Oslo accords weren’t a peace agreement; it was an agreement for an interim status.

What does it mean?
It means that the occupied territories were divided to mainly two kinds of territories: “Palestinian” (A&B territories) and “Israeli” (C territories).

What does it mean in practice?

It means that the Israeli military rule over every aspect of the Palestinians’ lives ended in 1993 and the Palestinians got a limited autonomy.

On one hand, they govern their own education, police etc’…

But on the other hand, the Palestinians’ territories (A&B areas) are divided to more than 150 “islands” by the Israeli territories (C areas).

In the Palestinians point of view, their autonomy was established only to function towards a future independent state, thus hoping to achieve territorial continuity and the reduction of the “Israeli” territories in the west bank (C areas).

In reality, Israel had increased its building in the West bank and multiplied the numbers of settlers by three.
Imagine two people trying to decide how to divide a tray of pizza between themselves. Now how does it look when one of them insists that while still talking about it, he insists on eating and biting the slices which are designated to the other guy.
 

One can surley say that Israel actually had emptied the Oslo accords from its propose.
 

It is interesting to see that In fact, Israel enjoys this current situation for a couple of reasons:

​

1. As long as the Oslo accords are still valid, the illusion of a future Palestinian state lives on. As long as this illusion exists, Israel is quite free from international pressure.  There is no doubt that any country in the world nowadays would agree that a country would rule over millions of people outside its sovereign borders without any hope of change in the future.

2. The Oslo accords took off a lot of burden from the Israeli army. 
   The Israeli martial law over the Palestinians from 1967-1993 constituted a great deal of economical, military, human resources and political load. There are only a mere few people who think Israel should and can return to this previous status.

3. Since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Preventive Security Force became more and more effective and its coordination with Israel’s forces improved and helps preventing terror and violence escalation on a daily basis.

It is ironic to point out that the political plan of the far right “Jewish Home” party (aka Bennet’s Relieving Plan) is actually not different from the Oslo accords.

​