The Refugee Problem: An Artificial Crisis
“To us, the refugee issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state.” Those were the words of Sakher Habash, a senior member of Fatah Central Committee, lecturing in 1998 at An-Najah University in Nablus.
Winning card? End of the Israeli state? In that brief sentence Habash revealed both the reason why Palestinian leadership refuses to help the Palestinian refugees and the desired end of their agenda. While military action, terrorism, and deception have failed to accomplish the elimination of the Jewish state, the Palestinian leaders perpetually keep the refugees in miserable camps simply to be used as human pawns in a cynical and dishonest propaganda campaign. That campaign has successfully deceived many in the West, including the EU; especially many pro-BDS religious organizations and NGOs who, pre-disposed by their Kairos and replacement theology (with its implicit anti-Semitism), are only too willing to be convinced.
The BDS movement relies on the ignorance of its audience. Analyst David Meir-Levi calls the protracted refugee crisis “an artificial crisis maintained by Arab rulers in order to exploit their own people’s suffering – to create a ‘poster child’ for Palestinian victimhood, a staging ground for anti-Israel propaganda, a training center for Arab terrorists, and a trump card for the anti-Israel jihad when all else fails.” (www.aish.com/jw/me/498116622.html)
The Arab refugee problem basically started in 1947; but we need to go back further and note that Israel was created out of Turkish land from the Ottoman Empire. Before the British Mandate, the Arabs living in Palestine considered themselves to be Syrian citizens. There was no group of people who identified themselves as Palestinian and therefore no territory being claimed by a Palestinian national entity.
Fast-forwarding to 1947, the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) would have created two states out of the west-of-Jordan remainder of the Mandate. The Arab states rejected the partition plan and launched a war on Israel in a coordinated attack. That military assault was the initial cause of the Arab refugee problem.
It was the Arab states, eight of them, not the Israelis or the Palestinian Arabs, who started the war. Rejecting Israel’s peace offers, they intended to annihilate the Jews. They lost the war in a humiliating defeat, and the infant state of Israel prevailed. Ever since then the Muslim Arabs commemorate that defeat (Israel’s amazing survival) as al-Nakba, “the catastrophe.” But what they call the catastrophe was entirely unnecessary and avoidable. In truth, they have only themselves to blame for initiating the war of aggression that they so ignominiously lost. Likewise, they have themselves to blame for the resulting refugee problem.
Scholar Sol Stern says this: “The Nakba is the heart of the Palestinians’ backward-looking national narrative which depicts the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 as the original sin that dispossessed the land’s native people. […] Every year the legend grows.” (www.city-journal.org/html/nakba-obsession-13303.html)
Chairman Yasser Arafat, declared in his 2003 Nakba Day speech, “On this accursed day, the state of Israel was established by force of arms. … Our people were strewn from our homeland, in exile, in the diaspora, and in the refugee camps by massacres. (https://www.memri.org/reports/arafats-nakba-day-speech)
Stern notes, “Echoing the Nakba narrative is an international coalition of leftists that celebrates the Palestinians as the quintessential Other, the last victims of Western racism and colonialism.” That coalition of leftists conspicuously includes the religious proponents of BDS.
Armed with newly declassified British archives, historian Ephraim Karsch writes, “It was only from the early 1950’s onward, as the Palestinians and their Western supporters gradually rewrote their national narrative, that Israel, rather than the Arab states, became the Nakba’s main, if not sole, culprit. The ex-Mufti led the way by casting his countrymen as the hapless victims of a Jewish grand design to dispossess them of their patrimony….” (Karsch, Palestine Betrayed)
Revisionist historian and frequent critic of Israel Benny Morris writes that in defiance of Resolution 181, the Arabs “launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying the community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes….” Morris says that most of those 700,000 fled their homes with the promise from their leaders that they could return shortly after a quick Arab victory. Two-thirds of those were displaced, he notes, “from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee)….” (Quoted in Stern)
The number of Palestinian refugees who fled in 1947-49 is disputed. Figures from a 1947 census and the UN indicate a number closer to half a million. The Palestinians fled for different reasons.[1] Most of them fled to get out of the way of the expected Arab invasion. We should note here in passing that the number of Jewish refugees who were expelled at the same time from Arab countries, around 850,000, surpassed the number of Palestinian refugees. Those Jewish refugees were stripped of their property and citizenship in those countries. That comparison is a telling study, but our focus here is on the Palestinians.
Contrary to the anti-Zionist narrative, Israel in 1948 encouraged the Palestinians to stay in their homes and become Israeli citizens. The May 14th Proclamation of Independence said, “In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions.”
David Ben Gurion had declared, years before 1948, “All our aspiration is built on the assumption … that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.” In November 1947 Golda Meir told a crowd in Jerusalem, “Our hands are extended in peace to our neighbors. Both states can live in peace with one another and cooperate for the welfare of their inhabitants.” (Ephraim Karsch, Palestine Betrayed)
“Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution,” writes Mitchell Bard, “not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.” Time and again since 1947, Arab leaders have rejected Israeli peace overtures, revealing that only a zero-sum “river-to-the sea” judenrein Levant will satisfy them. Apparently, their allies in the BDS movement have no problem with that outcome.
Several relevant issues spin off from the Palestinian refugee problem. One can ask: Why do the Arab nations, after seven decades, still refuse to welcome the refugees? Why does the UN persist in exercising a double standard for Palestinian refugees, vis-à-vis all the other millions of refugees in the world? Why does the UN maintain UNRWA, a special administrative department for Palestinians, while the rest of the world’s refugees are administered collectively under the UNHCR? Why does the UN spend three times more money per capita on Palestinian refugees than on other refugees in the world? Why does the UN apply a special definition of refugee to the Palestinians, uniquely giving refugee status to multiple descendant generations of Palestinians, most of whom were born long after 1948? These and other related issues deserve attention, but our spotlight here is on the false claim, often trumpeted in pro-BDS religious circles, that Israel caused the problem.
To quote David Meir-Levi: “It was not Israel that caused the Arab refugee problem, nor Israel that obstructed its solution. On the contrary, the Arab refugee problem was the direct result of the aggression by the Arab states, and their refusal after failing to obliterate Israel to sign a formal peace, or to take care of the Arab refugees who remained outside Israel’s borders.” (www.aish.com/jw/me/48916622.html)
[1] “A large part of the Arab civilian population was deluded into believing that it was in its interest to withdraw from the areas in conflict and in this way to enable the Arab armies to wipe out the Jews. They hoped to fall heir to the property of the defeated Jews.” […] [By contrast,] “The defeated Arab countries compelled their Jewish citizens, by direct or indirect means, to emigrate from their countries of residence. … The Jewish refugees left all their property in their ountries of origin. […] The Arab nations that made war on Israel, and encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to reject adamantly all offers of compromise continue to refuse to assume responsibility for the Arab refugees.” Avneri, Arieh. The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948. 283-284.
Apartheid: What it is and what it isn’t
By Nikki Golomb.
“For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them…”
UN International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
Apartheid, the Dutch word for separation, was the official system of political, economic, social, and cultural oppression of the Black majority in South Africa from 1948 until 1991. Although different forms of racism and discrimination still exist around the world today, the specific methods of oppression exercised by the South African government during this time are unique to the system of apartheid. The United Nations Apartheid Convention (cited above) lists several methods of oppression indicative of apartheid, thus defining it as a distinct system of legislative discrimination.
A common misconception among the anti-Israel community is that Israel is an apartheid state. In order to dispel this misunderstanding, it is important to recognize two facts: first, that Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis are equal under Israeli law; and second, that Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, and thus are not subject to Israeli law.
First, let us explore the rights of Arab Israelis. In order to do this, it is important to recognize the difference between societal discrimination and legal discrimination. Societal discrimination, for example, would explain that Arab Israelis are likely to receive a poorer education when compared to Jewish Israelis due to Arabs being viewed by some as second-class citizens, economic factors which make it difficult for Arab families to pay for private education, and a history of discrimination of which the effects are still being felt today. Lawful discrimination, on the other hand, would imply the legalization of forced school segregation based on ethnicity, as well as substandard educational materials and resources provided to Arab schools. While it is true that state religious (Jewish) schools and Arab and Druze schools exist, they are meant to cater toward each individual group’s cultural needs and are provided with uniform subject matter and appropriate funding; furthermore, the majority of Israeli students attend public (mixed) schools [source]. In terms of higher education, Arab Israelis make up 14.4% of Bachelor Degree students; 10% of Master Degree students; 6% of PhD candidates; and 35% of medical school students at the Technion [source]. While South Africa under apartheid gave Black citizens an inferior education, Israel provides equal education for all of its citizens, regardless of ethnicity. Arab Israelis additionally enjoy the right to vote, the right to form political parties, freedom of expression, and all other rights granted to all Israeli citizens.
Arab Israelis also have many prominent positions in Israeli society, a phenomenon which would be downright impossible, let alone illegal, under apartheid. Seventeen Arab Israelis were elected to serve in the current Israeli Knesset, comprising 14% of all Members of Knesset. An Arab Justice serves on the Israeli Supreme Court, and 52 of Israel’s 672 Judges are Arab. Arab Israelis additionally work as professors, doctors, journalists, and other high-power positions throughout Israeli society. While these numbers do not reflect complete equality (in which, theoretically, Arabs would make up 19% of these workers, as they comprise 19% of the population of Israel), it again highlights the important distinction between social discrimination and legal segregation. Israel cannot be an apartheid state, because all of its citizens are treated equally under the law.
Now we can look at the more complex issue of Palestinian rights. While it is true that Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip cannot vote in Israeli elections, do not have access to Israeli education, and are not represented in the Knesset, this is because of the simple fact that they are not Israeli citizens. Just as I, an American Jew, cannot vote in Israeli elections because I am not an Israeli citizen, neither can a Palestinian. Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, Palestinians are subject to their own governments; and though these governments (the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza) are anything but just, Israel has no governmental authority in those territories. Israel cannot be an apartheid state on the grounds of the rights of Palestinians simply because the Israeli government is in no position to grant or deny Palestinians civil and political rights.
With regards to what many refer to as the “apartheid wall,” the Security Fence along the border of Israel and the West Bank is actually a fence that is less than 5% wall. Although security checkpoints are an inconvenient reality that create difficulties for Palestinians when they enter Israel, they are necessary in order to protect the lives of all Israeli citizens. The fence, which was built during the second Intifada, stopped hundreds of terror attacks a day during the height of its success. While many Palestinians feel it is degrading and it is not a perfect solution by any means, it is a necessity in order to ensure the security of Israeli citizens. Just as you and I must go through border control when entering a different country, those wishing to enter Israel from the West Bank must also endure a security checkpoint. This is not apartheid – it is national security.
Discrimination is, like in all countries around the world, a problem in Israel which is being addressed. However, it is not the legalized system of oppression that many claim it to be. Arab Israelis have full rights under Israeli law, and Palestinians are subject to their own laws and policies. While the methods of protecting national security are not perfect and social equality has not yet been realized, calling Israel a state of apartheid is both factually inaccurate and offensive to the Black South Africans who lived through true apartheid. In order to truly advocate for the rights of those in and around Israel, it is vital to do so using all the facts and correct terminology. It is impossible to fight against something which does not exist, and it is a waste of time and energy to do so when there are real problems that must be addressed.
Omar Barghouti: A Man with Two Faces
By Nikki Golomb.
In 2005, Omar Barghouti founded the infamous boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) movement; a movement which on its surface appears to promote the rights of Palestinians by pursuing economic, academic, and cultural boycotts of Israel. Beneath the surface, however, it becomes clear that this movement’s true goal is to bring an end to the State of Israel and replace it with a sovereign Palestinian state.
BDS is an extremist, anti-Zionist movement masked as human rights activism. It should thus come as no surprise that Barghouti also aims to portray himself with the same kind of mask. However, if we take a closer look at his actions and beliefs, we see a very different picture. Who, then, is the man behind the movement?
Omar Barghouti was born in Qatar to Palestinian parents, grew up in Egypt, and received a master’s degree from Columbia University before marrying an Arab-Israeli woman and gaining permanent residency status in Israel. He has since received a second master’s degree as well as a PhD from Tel Aviv University in ethics. The irony of this is almost laughable, given that a founding principle of the BDS movement is an academic boycott of Israeli institutions, scholars, and studies. He has enjoyed invaluable benefits from Israeli academic institutions, yet actively promotes boycotting those very institutions. When questioned about this hypocrisy, Barghouti cites personal matters and refuses to comment any further. He also conveniently does not mention that despite a petition among TAU students to remove him from the university, the university allowed him to complete his degrees. It should also be noted that there are 12 universities in the West Bank, one in East Jerusalem, and nine in Gaza. Yet instead of choosing to support any of these Palestinian academic institutions, as would be expected of a Palestinian nationalism activist, he received not one but two degrees from an Israeli university.
BDS, Barghouti claims, is a “non-violent human rights movement that seeks freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people” and is against the oppressive Israeli regime, not against individuals. However, the BDS movement boycotts Israeli individuals based on their nationality, and Barghouti himself refuses to work with Israelis – even those sympathetic to his cause. A true activist puts the movement above his own personal bias. Yet Barghouti goes so far as to say that Palestinians who engage with Israelis are “clinically delusional,” once again undermining his own movement by placing more significance in his personal prejudice than in achieving the goals of his movement.
In addition, Barghouti has publicly expressed disapproval for a two-state solution, instead favoring a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority presence. He believes that a Jewish state and a Palestinian one are incompatible. Even though the BDS movement claims to not advocate for any particular solution, the nature of the movement and the intentions of its founder suggest otherwise. While BDS appears to support one people’s self-determination, the heart of the movement aims to destroy that of another. Implicit in the movement’s advocacy is Barghouti’s personal goal of the elimination of the Jewish state.
Finally, Barghouti is vocal about making false claims of Israeli apartheid, violence against Palestinian children, colonization, and more. At the same time he denies violence and persecution against Jews in Arab states. Furthermore, the BDS movement portrays only one side of the conflict by refusing to even acknowledge the other perspective. By boycotting Israeli academics and culture, and by refusing to teach that there are two or more sides to every story, the BDS movement promotes a culture which values a narrow-minded outlook over balanced learning. Barghouti himself is hypocritical by spreading false information for the purposes of “education” while standing behind a movement which denies the opportunity to question this information.
Truly progressive and open-minded education does not present only one side of the story. Omar Barghouti and the BDS movement use dangerous tactics to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish state while hiding behind a mask of human rights advocacy. True activism, however, should not need such a mask. If Barghouti practiced what he preached, BDS would be more compelling. The need for him to completely shut down the other side’s perspective, to hide his hypocritical actions, and to use soft language to cover up an extremist ideology show the flaws, as well as the hypocrisy, in his arguments. Hiding behind a mask of human rights advocacy does not take away from his true intentions. The sad irony in all this is that the boycotting of Israeli businesses in the territories actually hurts the Palestinians themselves more than Israelis because it causes Palestinian unemployment!
In order to effectively promote human rights, we must promote all human rights. Palestinian self-determination cannot come at the expense of that of the Jews. We must find a way to support the rights and dignity of all people. Only then can we hope for a future of peace.
Not a peaceful protest
Gaza | Insider Update |
Hamas' violent confrontation campaign is not a peaceful protest
· The Hamas terror organization led another round of its confrontation campaign from Gaza against Israel. Orchestrated by Hamas, approximately 40,000 rioters gathered at the border and several thousand tried to storm into Israel at 13 locations.
· The rioters hurled firebombs and explosive devices, burned tires, threw rocks and launched flaming objects with the intention of igniting fires in Israeli territory, breaking into Israeli villages, and harming Israeli security officers.
· Israel made relentless efforts to prevent the masses from violently breaching the border. These included early warnings (by leaflets, direct phone calls, on radio and social media), as well as the use of non-lethal means (water cannons, tear gas, smoke grenades, rubber bullets).
· Inflamed and violent crowds cannot be allowed to storm the border fence, opening a way to infiltrate into Israeli towns and threaten Israeli civilians.
· What is happening at the Gaza-Israel border is not a protest; it is a well-prepared campaign by the Hamas terror organization, sending the masses to the fence, knowing they will get hurt, and hiding armed operatives among them, using civilians as human shields.
· The confrontations at the Gaza-Israel border started at the end of March, when Hamas led thousands of Palestinians in a confrontation campaign with Israel under the title "March of Return". The aim was to break the border fence, storm Israeli towns and attack Israeli civilians, reflecting Hamas' outspoken goal: the destruction of the State of Israel.
· Any country faced with a situation in which a terror organization is trying to storm its territory with the declared goal of murder and destruction will not hesitate to stop this aggression at its border.
· 53 of 62 of the Palestinian casualties sustained in the 14 May riots were acknowledged by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as terror operatives affiliated with their organizations.
· Hamas is a terror organization that has ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007, with the declared goal of the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas seeks to murder Israelis by terror attacks, firing rockets, placing IEDs and building terror tunnels into Israeli territory.
Understanding UN Bias Against Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice on the United Nations which has made the democratic State of Israel the target of incessant condemnation while neglecting its mandate in challenging the oppressive regimes around the world.
Yom Yerushalayim: Significance for Freedom of Religion
On May 13, Israelis and Jews will celebrate Jerusalem Day, commemorating the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty during the Six Day War of 1967. For some, the day is a celebration of renewed access to the Western Wall and the rest of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. For others, it is a more general celebration of success in the face of overwhelming odds.
However, one of the most underappreciated outcomes of a united Jerusalem relates to freedom of religion. Throughout the historical periods of Jewish, Christian and Muslim rule, the great faiths erected monuments and places of worship unrivalled by other cities. The Hurva and Ohel Yitzhak Synagogues are a window into the city’s Jewish history, in the same way that the Churches of the Holy Sepulchre and St. Anne are to the city’s Christian heritage. Similarly, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are revered by Muslims worldwide and are a core component of the city’s Islamic heritage.
It is for this reason that the 1947 UN Partition Plan originally designated Jerusalem as corpus separatum (separated body), to be an international city that guaranteed access to adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths.
However, the cosmopolitan nature of the city today is very different to the atmosphere between 1948-1967.
Prior to 1967, Jordanian authorities severely limited freedom of religion in the city. Upon capturing the Jewish Quarter in 1948’s War of Independence, Transjordanian Arab Legion Major Abdullah el-Tell is said to have told his superiors: ‘For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible[1].’
Contrast this to the pronouncements of Prime Minister David Ben Gurion in 1948. When it appeared the Jewish forces were on the cusp of capturing the Old City of Jerusalem, he famously ordered the commander of Jerusalem, David Shaltiel, to ‘prepare a special force - loyal and obedient - …that will mercilessly use machine guns against every Jew – and especially against every Jewish soldier - who will attempt to rob or desecrate a Christian or Muslim holy place[2]’.
Between 1948 and 1967, the city was characterized by the repression of religious freedom and the destruction of minorities’ places of worship. All but two of the Old City’s 58 synagogues were destroyed under Jordanian rule[3]. Furthermore, Jordan’s King Hussein permitted the uprooting of thousands of tombstones at the Mount of Olives Cemetery for the construction of roads through the complex and even latrines for the Jordanian soldiers stationed there.
Even in recent decades, we can again see questionable respect for religious sites. The Solomon’s Stables structure existed under the Southeast corner of the Temple Mount and contained artefacts from eras as the First and Second Temple, Roman, Byzantine and Muslim periods[4]. However, the Israeli Islamic Movement decided in 1995-1996 to renovate the complex with the aim of converting it to a mosque[5]. With careless demolition procedures and without the official approval from relevant authorities, substantial irreversible damage was done to the Southern Wall of the city. As early as 2001, the Antiquities Authority discovered considerable swelling on the Wall, leading to the possibility that, along with the Eastern Wall, it could collapse[6].
The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif is another area that relies heavily on the guarantee of freedom of religion. Currently administered by the Jordanian funded waqf (Islamic trust), the complex is important in both historical and religious terms. Rather than infringe upon the right of access to Muslim adherents, the status quo agreement guarantees their access at the expense of Jewish adherents. While Jews have the right to enter the compound, they are forbidden from praying or carrying religious artefacts such as siddurim or kippot out of sensitivity for the Muslim sites there.
These Jerusalem-specific arrangements complement an extensive legislative regime aimed at protecting freedom of religion. The Protection of Holy Places Law of 1967 guarantees freedom of access to sacred places, protection against their desecration and even protection against violations of adherents’ feelings toward these places[7]. Furthermore, Israeli law does not prohibit changing one’s religion nor does it prohibit proselytizing (missionizing).
Thus, in celebrating Jerusalem Day, focus should not only be upon the unexpected victory of Israel’s military in 1967. It should be on the underlying heritage that unites the three Abrahamic religions, and the way in which Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem has safeguarded religious freedom.
[1] Zilhka, A. (1992), ‘History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ in E. W. Fernea and M. E. Hocking (eds.), The Struggle for Peace: Israelis and Palestinians, University of Texas Press, United States, p. 53
[2] Ankori, G. (2006), Palestinian Art, Reaktion Books, London, p. 26
[3] Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin (1967), ‘Cabinet Report Says Jordan Destroyed 56 Old City Synagogues, Desecrated Cemetery’, November 2, p. 2, accessed March 7 2017, http://pdfs.jta.org/1967/1967-11-02_212.pdf
[4] Gonen, R. (2003), Contested Holiness: Jewish, Muslim and Christian Perspectives on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, KTAV Publishing, United States, p. 167-169
[5] Shragai, N. (2012), ‘The Danger to Al-Aksa from Muslim Building Activity in Solomon’s Stables’, in Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, The “Al-Aksa Is in Danger” Libel: The History of a Lie, accessed March 7 2017, http://jcpa.org/danger-to-al-aksa-from-muslim-building-in-solomons-stables/
[6] ibid
[7] The Israeli Knesset, Protection of Holy Places Law 5727 (1967), accessed March 7 2017, https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/HolyPlaces.htm
A Difficult Quest For Peace
A History of Public Opinion from 1967-2017
Fifty years ago, confronted with clear evidence of an impending Egyptian-led invasion, Israel's leaders gambled its national survival by launching a pre-emptive assault. What became known as the "Six Day War" has since become a signal historical event in the nation's history, and still shapes the collective consciousness of the Israeli people. Within less than a week, the tiny country's territory tripled.
The unsought Israeli control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Desert brought urgent questions before the nation. Should Israel permanently annex one-or-more of these regions? Might they serve, instead, as critical bargaining pieces in a quest to persuade her enemies to abandon their dreams of Israel's destruction? What legal and ethical principles should guide the national debate?
Fifty years later, East Jerusalem has been integrated into Jerusalem's municipal borders. To meet critical security needs, the Golan Heights has been annexed into Israel. The Sinai Desert was returned to Egypt. Although Israel withdrew voluntarily from Gaza, the final status of Gaza and the West Bank remain undetermined. In other words, the questions posed by the miraculous outcome of the Six Day War remain unanswered.
The opinions of the Israeli people about these complex legal, ethical, political, and security issues have been measured, repeatedly, for five decades. Polling data makes up an overlooked, but vital, vector of national feedback during several crucial phases of the post-1967 era. Changing national convictions have influenced the decisions of political leaders, even as those leaders have, in turn, shaped public views.
This paper tracks the public's evolving response to the continuing conflict and, especially, to the indeterminate status of the territories. We conclude that the public showed a surprisingly sophisticated, if intuitive, grasp of the substantial risks tied to the most sweeping proposals and initiatives spanning 1967 to 2017. Our analysis will help anticipate, to some extent, the pathway which still lies ahead for the nation.
