In Defense: Israel and the Jews

Benjamin Netanyahu created quiet a stir recently when he said that no Palestinian state would be created under his leadership. Many liberals will see Netanyahu as being a mean-spirited hard-liner, but in reality it's a matter of practicality. As the situation currently stands it is not in Israel's best interests for Palestinian state.  For one, a contiguous Palestinian state would come at the expense of a dis-contiguous Israel. The current proposal of merging Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two. Incidentally this proposal is similar to the 1947 UN partition plan that the Arab's rejected at that time. Second, such a Palestinian state would set Israel back to pre-1967 borders, nicknamed the Auschwitz borders because they are indefensible. A return to those lines would leave Israel with a waistline just nine miles (15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point. A "two-state solution” would be a "final solution" for Israel. Third,  as seen...

The following is a deceptive map depicting Palestinian lands lost to Israel: http://images.alarabiya.net/israel-palestine_map_19225_2469.jpg This map is deceptive because it begins with a false premise, that is all the land initially belonged to the Palestinians. This is false. First of all, the land previously belonged to the Ottoman Turks. Secondly, there is not a distinct ethnic people with a distinct language known as the Palestinians. Palestine was originally known as the land of Judea by the Romans. After a series of Jewish revolts against Rome, Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the land "Palestine" ( Philistia ) around 135 AD, after the Jews ancestral enemies the Philistines, and the name stuck. The idea was to disconnect the land from the Jews. The Roman coin below commemorates the Roman victory with the words "Judea Capta" meaning "[the land of Judea] is captured." Fast forward several centuries later and the region is now under the...

On June 17, 2010, political analyst and author Jeremy R. Hammond posted an article entitled " Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict " in which he attempts to dispel the myths surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a decisively Anti-Israel perspective. Since his article encompasses so many of the arguments and criticisms that are levied against Israel, it's the perfect piece in which to refute those allegations which are routinely used to demonize and delegtimize Israel. Feel free to share without my permission, just give proper credit. #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region. Claim: Jews and Arabs have not always been in conflict until Zionism. Arab and Jew relations Jews and Arabs have always had a contemptuous relationship.While Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace at various times with Jews, peaceful coexistence meant subordination and degradation. Under Islamic law Jews held dhimmi status, meaning that they...

#2 - The United Nations created Israel Claim: The United Nations, under UNSCOP, did not create Israel because both parties did not accept Resolution 181. The reason for the partition in the first place The UNSCOP came to the conclusion that the conflicting national aspirations of the Arabs and Jews could not be reconciled. The only solution was to partition two states, one Jewish the other Arab. Despite that the Jews were not happy with the small allotment of territory and they would not have Jerusalem they accepted the compromise. This despite the land allotted to the Jews was only 13% of the original British Mandate for a purposed Jewish state. The Arabs rejected it, despite there being 22 Arab states and one Jewish state. Why there were no Arab representatives The reason UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country was because the Arab Higher Committee boycotted the Commission. The Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, speaking to Jewish Agency representatives ...

#3 – The Arabs missed an opportunity to have their own state in 1947. Claim: The Arabs are justified in rejecting the 1947 U.N. partition plan because the land was stolen from them in the first place and rightfully belonged to them. Land Ownership As previously noted, Jews were the majority in the land allotted to them under UN Resolution 181. While Jewish immigration increased from Europe, Jews never had a chance to reach majority in the region. Jewish immigration and land purchases under the British Mandate period were severely restricted, while Arabs were free to enter the country. And many Arabs did immigrate by the thousands, which had been in decline prior to the Mandate in 1922. Jews would have been given 55 percent of the land for a state, and Arabs 45 percent. However this 45 percent was on top of the 77 percent of the original mandate which was intended for the Jewish state, but under Arab pressure was cut off and granted to the Hashemites. It was Jordan that was mea...

#5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973 Claim: Israel was the aggressor in 1967, there was no imminent threat.  The 1973 surprise attack by the Arabs was justified. The 1956 Suez Canal Crisis Egypt was never a victim. Under the Constantinople Convention of 1888, which Egypt signed, it ensured that, “The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.” However in 1949, continuing it's hostilities toward Israel, Egypt closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and cargoes, illegally blocking the canal. The consequences not only affected Israel but the financial and strategic interests of the United Kingdom and France as well. UN negotiator Ralph Bunche said, “There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spiri...

#4 – Israel has a “right to exist” Claim: Israel is illegitimate because it stole land belonging to the Arab's Israel's right to exist In the words of Israeli diplomat and politician Abba Eban, “Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist.' Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement. . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ‘right to exist’ a favor, or a negotiable concession.” Put simply, no nation has to try to prove it’s legitimacy or it’s right to exist. It exists for the same reason that any other nation exists, because it can and because it can occupy the land and defend it. This is true for any nation in history.   The framework for a Jewish state began with the British Mandate which expired on May 14, 1948, t...