FACTS ON THE GROUND
As a Jewish millennial, I considered myself very informed on the situation in the Middle East, specifically with regards to Israel. After studying the conflict in college and receiving a degree in Middle Eastern Studies, I believed that I had developed a nuanced perspective from what I believed to be a diverse set of sources. However, when I began working at the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, I realized just how much of the picture I was missing and how much I still had to learn. The anti-Israel bias in the Western media became clear both in terms of how they portrayed the different sides in the conflict and especially on the information that they withheld from the public.
The BDS movement attempts to use this flow of information to its advantage. BDS leaders would have you believe that the only way to end the suffering of the people in the region is to boycott Israel. The movement conveniently leaves out any information that negatively portrays the Palestinians and their government as well as any information that reflects positively on Israel. It is due time for information to flow more freely and honestly so that people might truly understand the situation on the ground. With distorted facts come distorted opinions that do nothing to further dialogue or peace.
One of my first projects required me to research the difference in standards of living between that of Arab-Israeli women and those in Arab countries throughout the region. My research taught me a number of things. For example, while one can walk through the streets of Israel and see Arab women doing as they please, women are forbidden from many things in Gaza, like smoking hookah in public or running the Gaza marathon. Certainly more alarming, while Israel has a law making rape - including spousal rape - a felony punishable by 16 years in prison, a man in the Palestinian Authority could avoid prosecution for rape or sexual assault if he marries his victim due to a “marry-your-rapist” law.
I am shocked by the world’s silence regarding these laws targeting women in the Arab world. Yet, the United Nations dedicates extensive time towards chastising Israel for its treatment of women. With an increased focus on women’s rights, it is now time that the women under the control of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas receive the same attention and support from the international community.
My next projects focused on the BDS movement, something I fortunately had little interaction with on my college campus. There were stories circulating about the movement and its successes in convincing people of Israel’s supposed evils. BDS makes claims that Israel discriminates against the Arabs living in the country and highlights the harsh restrictions that Israel imposes on the movement of Palestinians. In reality, Arab-Israelis are an integral part of society, both academically and professionally. Arab-Israelis serve as Knesset members in both Arab and non-Arab parties and make up 16.1% of students in Israeli universities. Additionally, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy equal rights under the law, the same as their Jewish counterparts. In terms of the supposed “restriction of movement,” people blamed the security fence, which was built for and succeeded in preventing terror attacks. And even with this fence, over 100,000 Palestinians enter Israel every day for work. All this proves that these claims of discrimination are drastically exaggerated in service of a clearly dishonest agenda.
When reading about the region in the United States, it seemed that every little incident in Israel would be front-page news. The media loves pointing out Israel’s flaws, highlighting any instance that could be portrayed as an example of Israeli maltreatment of the Palestinians or its own Arab citizens. What was lacking was a comparable scrutiny of the governing bodies of the Palestinians. When the media does report on Hamas’ mistreatment of its citizens in Gaza, albeit infrequently, the Palestinian Authority does not receive any condemnation but is ignored for its corruption and the abuse of its people. In reality, Hamas steals electricity from its citizens while encouraging them to kill family members suspected of aiding Israel. At the same time, The Palestinian Authority works hard to silence any dissent, torturing journalists and others who attempt to speak out about the government’s abuses. In addition, rarely does one hear about the Palestinian Authority paying monthly salaries to families of terrorists. These are just some of the many abuses of power occurring in the Gaza Strip and West Bank that the Western media fail to adequately report. But why are these things not common knowledge among my peers? Where is the outrage from people who claim to care about human rights?
The BDS movement tries to change the narrative and distort the facts on the ground. It hopes that the incomplete and false media coverage of the situation will influence people to have a negative perception of Israel and to blame it for the conflict. This requires us to do our own research and learn the truth so that we do not let the BDS movement dictate the narrative and forge it as one of hate and lies.
My Encounter with Hatred: A Student in London
The first time the BDS movement caught my attention was on April 27, 2017. The date is etched into my mind because up until that day, I’d always thought of anti-Zionism as the ‘pet hate’ of the Jewish community, the enemy that we need in order to justify ourselves and to make excuses for ‘security measures’. Like Jews of many generations, I preferred to focus on the challenges of day-to-day living and not look at the totally irrational hatred being spread against me and my people. The basic rationale of my thinking was that Jew-hatred and Zionist-hatred doesn’t make sense, therefore it can’t be such a big problem.
On April 27, 2017 that changed.
I had been accepted to start studying in one of the major London universities and was at the university to make inquiries regarding my enrollment. My head was held high because I was proud to have the opportunity to be educated in this well-reputed institution. As I walked through the campus, I was intrigued to hear the sound of drums and people shouting. Slightly surprised but being compulsively inquisitive, I drew near to see the meaning of the rowdiness in civilized London. It didn’t take long to recognize – the Palestinian flags and chants immediately flooded my mind with memories of having stones hurled at me while on duty in the West Bank and pictures of one of my soldiers who got hit by a massive rock in the chest while overseeing a demonstration.
Taken by surprise, I walked amongst the protestors. Seeing people from a whole range of ethnic backgrounds, I attempted to fathom what was going on behind the aggressive shouts. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” and “Israel is a fascist state!” were chanted by the sea of protestors. What was the meaning of all this? It turned out that the protest was against the Israeli Ambassador’s speaking on the university campus – as this invitation was seen to be ‘provocative’. They wanted the university to boycott the speaker because the speaker represented Israel, which they saw as being an evil occupier. It was chilling to think that in the middle of London, people were openly advocating for the end of the State of Israel, ‘from the river to the sea’.
Even though I found it difficult to hold my resolve together amidst those who were in essence denying my identity as an Israeli, I have always been taught of the importance of listening to the other side and to be willing to admit when I am wrong. So, I stuck around and wandered between the protestors, asking them what they knew about the conflict and trying to understand why they were so worked up. Most of the answers I got were that the Palestinians are being butchered by the Israelis and that we all need to do everything we can to fight the ‘evil occupation’. These 19 and 20-year-olds who had been educated that Israel is an evil-colonialist venture, seemed surprised when I told them I had just finished my service in the IDF as an Officer in a Combat Unit and that I was a relatively normal human being, not thirsty for Palestinian blood. When asked if I’d given my testimony to “Breaking the Silence” – an organization of former IDF soldiers who testify to having been forced to commit violations against Palestinians – I responded that I hadn’t because I didn’t have any violations to report: my commanders were men of integrity, amongst the most moral people I know, and I had always taught my troops to have value for all human life – Jew, Arab and everyone else.
Sadly, the protestors didn’t seem to care very much for talking, the atmosphere wasn’t one for talking or thinking – rather, one of being joined together in the anti-Israel mob. As I politely approached individuals to ask them questions about the implications of their demands on the Jewish people, I was angrily brushed aside. It reminded me of drunk fans cursing a referee at a football match or scenes from Gladiator at the Colosseum – the chants and drum beats working up ‘anti-emotion’ against Israel and her Ambassador.
The hardest part of the protest for me was seeing the protestors take an Israeli flag, dipping it in red paint and waving it around. The Israeli flag is designed to remind one of the Jewish prayer shawl, and to me it represents the hope of the Jewish people for sovereignty. This blatant desecration of the flag cut me to the heart. I don’t hate Palestinians, and I would never desecrate a Palestinian flag. I don’t agree with all of the policies of the Israeli government, and I sincerely desire peace. When people I know in Israel try to delegitimize the rights of the Palestinian people, I speak up. What good can come of desecrating my flag – making it look like it’s dipped in blood? I wanted to scream and shout and let out all the scorn and insult that this caused me, but I realized that I was helpless. I could do nothing. Letting out my anger would only be adding gasoline to the flame of hatred against me and my nation.
After the protest, I was left with a lot to process. Emotionally and mentally drained, I left the campus to do some serious soul-searching. Why so much hatred? Why is the BDS movement so intent on drowning out other voices (my voice)? They say that I’ve been brainwashed, even though I’m willing to try and listen to them. Could it be that they are brainwashed? Should determining who is right or wrong in a conflict be decided in a shouting match? Is the populistic mob-like behavior I experienced in London the way forward?
After these experiences I was challenged to read a book by Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky explaining the BDS movement claims, and as a result I have become more aware than before of the need for personal and Israeli self-criticism. But alongside this, I have become concerned about the BDS movement, the amount of irrational hatred it is spreading, and its means of achieving it. Two wrongs do not make a right. Trying to prevent dialogue and attempting to drown out voices is not going to bring justice, reconciliation, or hope – it is merely going to make people hate more. I’m only 26, but I’ve seen enough hatred in my life. I hope most people will agree with me that we don’t need any more hatred in our world.
THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
Historically speaking, going back as far as ancient Egypt, Justice has been symbolized by a set of scales. The reason for this is the widely held recognition of the fact there are always two sides to every dispute and that for justice to be done, a judge must consider both sides.
As a Law student, the image of scales continually haunts me. In order to do justice, any legal dispute must be judged according to the following fundamental principles:
- impartiality – listening equally to both sides’ claims
- looking at the circumstances of the case
- weighing up the implications of judgement
- examining alternative solutions to the dispute at hand
Many great minds have laboured over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seeking to bring a just solution. But, as with every conflict, one must adhere to the principles necessary for the implementation of justice. The BDS movement, however, does not adhere to these basic principles.
The BDS movement preaches, ‘Say no to normalization,’ a boycott of any event that seeks to ‘bring together Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis so they can present their respective narratives and perspectives or to work toward reconciliation without addressing the root causes of injustice’ (BDS Website). In doing so, the BDS movement is attempting to redefine justice by narrowing it down to its own narrative and creating a monopoly on the truth. This is a blatant violation of the principle of impartiality. In doing so, they are weighing down on one side of the scales and attempting to outlaw any evidence that would add weight to the opposing side. They say that any attempt to achieve a solution that doesn’t follow their definition of ‘the roots of injustice’ is intellectually dishonest. As someone who has grown up in a conflict zone and is a student in the academia, this comes across as a very problematic statement. Just because someone sees through a different lens, does that make them intellectually dishonest? Who granted the BDS movement the authority to decide what is or isn’t intellectually dishonest? Such a statement seems to be academic imperialism and reminds me of Orwell’s thought police.
The BDS movement calls for a boycott until Israel meets three demands that they claim are the ‘roots of injustice’ (BDS Website):
- The occupation must be ended
- Arabs must have full equality in Israel
- Israel must recognize the right of return of 7.25 million Palestinians to the country.
These are seen to be a precondition for any type of cooperation. In holding this approach, they are violating a number of the aforementioned basic principles for justice. It limits alternative solutions, doesn’t monitor the conflict in light of the current circumstances and needs of the people, nor does it take into account the implications on the people of the region.
There is a fundamental assumption that there is no other way to finding a solution other than the solution suggested. Boycotting or not allowing sides to examine alternatives is the violation of a basic principle of justice. This is so problematic (and frustrating) because it limits or even prevents the ability of the Palestinians, the Israelis and the international community to take into account all of the interests of those involved. Automatically boycotting solutions based on dialogue, on political cooperation or economic cooperation doesn’t empower those seeking a solution, it merely limits them.
The circumstances: The fact that there are over seven million Palestinian refugees living outside the country must be seen in light of the approach to refugees according to international law and the ability to incorporate refugees into different communities. Is it a proportionate measure to expect the return of such a large number of refugees seventy years later? Furthermore, in seeking a just solution, it is essential to recognize the existence of the Jewish State that currently provides refuge to millions of Jewish refugees from around the world.
The implications: Calling for the Right of Return of 7.25 million Palestinians doesn’t take into account the right of the Jewish people to sovereignty and the fact that such an action would bring an end to any form of Jewish State. Additionally, the BDS campaign ignores the fact that boycotting Israeli companies and cooperation with them both takes away jobs from Palestinians and prevents the building of bridges between Jews and Arabs – as this is seen as ‘getting in the way of the resistance’.
In this article I am not justifying every action taken by Israel. However, I am pointing out the large amount of harm brought about by the BDS movement, which in the name of justice is actively going about to pervert the course of justice and undermine any form of the rule of law. To do justice one must balance the evidence on both sides of the scales and only then make a judgement. One must do so by taking into account the circumstances of the matter, the implications of the actions involved, and alternative courses of action that can be taken.
REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY
“Wherever replacement theology has flourished, the Jews have had to run for cover,” notes biblical scholar Thomas Ice. “Wherever such a view has gone it has always led to anti-Semitism.”[1] Another scholar says, “Replacement Theology has provided the basis for all sorts of mischief, persecution, and atrocities against the Jewish people throughout Christian history.” (www.hethathasanear.com/ReplacementTheology.pdf)
It is clear from their resolutions and other official statements that the numerous Western church denominations and religious organizations supporting BDS share a common assumption in their theology. Sometimes they state it explicitly, and sometimes the underlying theology is tacitly assumed.
This assumption is based on a particular method of interpreting the Bible, a doctrine called supersessionism, an older name for replacement theology. The idea is that God is finished with the Jews, and that in his unfolding linear program of history, the New Testament Christian church has replaced the Jews as his chosen people of promise. The Church is now the “New” or “True Israel,” and the Jews no longer have a special status or a divine role. That idea comes from the belief that the Jews forfeited their role as the people of God when they rejected Jesus as Messiah, supposedly voiding their biblical covenant with God.
Replacement theology has been around for a long time. We can trace it as far back as the second century when Justin Martyr put forward the idea that the Christian church is “the true spiritual Israel.” Around the same time, Marcion and Irenaeus contributed to the same thinking. Mainstream Christianity started slipping away from its original Jewish roots around the end of the third century. “The Gentile powers-that-be in early institutional Christianity wanted to distance themselves from Christianity’s Jewish origins.” (www.hethathasanear.com/ReplacementTheology.pdf) In the fourth century, the church leader and historian Eusebius, together with an assembly of bishops and Emperor Constantine, formed a church-state alliance. Eusebius considered the unified Church and Empire to be the Kingdom of God on earth. That contrived unity, in Walter Kaiser’s words, “nicely evacuated the role and significance of the Jewish people in any kingdom considerations.”
Most of the church denominations and religious organizations subscribing to replacement theology have signed on to a shared manifesto called the Kairos Palestine document, which was composed by a group of Palestinian Christians in December 2009. Kairos calls for “churches and Christians in the world” to oppose the “oppression, displacement, suffering and clear apartheid” of Israel, “the occupying state.” In carefully crafted wording, Kairos blames Israel for anti-Zionist terrorism and declines to denounce it. (Kairos 4.3)
So many church and religious organizations promoting BDS have endorsed the Kairos document that it stands as a common denominator among them for the movement, expressing the common BDS themes that run through the respective denominational statements. Calling for flexible methodology in Bible interpretation, Kairos characterizes literalist interpretations as “petrified” rather than “living,” and “a theological cover-up for injustice.” What that amounts to is simply advocating one theology over a different one while substituting name-calling for argument. (www.kairospalestine.ps)
This rejection of literal meaning goes back to the turn of the fifth century, when Bishop Augustine of Hippo introduced a problematic method for interpreting the Bible through allegory. Intended allegory is not unknown in the Bible, as the Bible itself shows in the letter to the Galatians. There is a place for figurative language; but logically, the literal meaning of a text should be taken before jumping to the conclusion that the passage is representative of something else. Augustine, though, was inclined to find allegory everywhere he looked in Scripture, whether the text warranted it or not. Even if the straightforward reading of a passage was clear enough on its face, Augustine would work out an allegorical meaning that changed the original meaning into some total abstraction. Replacement theology relies heavily on such allegorical “spiritualizing.”
This method is dangerous because the literal meaning and intent of the writing become obliterated. As a result, anything goes. Allegory is unconstrained, not grounded in objectivity. Words and sentences become empty vessels that the interpreter can fill with whatever meaning he likes in order to support his own preferred belief system. This method is very convenient for those who don’t want accept the obvious doctrines as stated in the original text. It is akin, in fact, to the postmodernist “death of the author” methodology in which the author’s intended meaning is irrelevant.
The more the church accepted Augustine’s allegorical method of interpretation, the more it became removed from the verbal content of the Bible. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church relied heavily on Augustine, calling him “the blessed Doctor.” Then during the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin picked up Augustine’s teachings and infused them into much of mainstream Protestantism at the expense of face-value interpretation.
Thomas Ice writes, “The Church often allegorizes many portions of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, in order to teach that since the time of Christ, Israel has no claim to the land of Israel.” He quotes Bible scholar and Holocaust survivor Arnold Fruchtenbaum (PhD, NYU): “While the church is said to be a partaker in Israel’s promises in the New Testament, nowhere is she said to be a taker over of Israel’s promises.”
The anti-Semitic character of replacement theology shows through in the irony that while it calls itself “the true Israel of God,” it selectively and arbitrarily claims to inherit all the divine blessings promised to Israel – but none of the curses. The judgments and curses stay with Israel. According to replacement theology, God has rejected the Jews and they are no longer his chosen people. The church has entirely replaced ethnic and national Israel in God’s plan, and there is no longer any reason to ascribe any special consideration or unique significance to the Jews as a people. The Jews have no national future in the divine program of history and no more claim to the Land of the Bible than any other nation.
On the contrary, if one reads the Bible without the presuppositions or replacement theology, it will be impossible to find an example anywhere in the Bible where the word Israel refers to anything but the Jews.[2] Interpretations of “the Israel of God” as referring to the church turn out under scrutiny to be extremely problematic. Throughout the Bible, Israel means Israel, the Jewish people.
“Replacement theology,” writes Ice, “has been the fuel that has energized Medieval anti-Semitism, Eastern European pogroms, the Holocaust, and contemporary disdain for the state of Israel.” This approach, with its problematic interpretation of the Bible also energizes the current BDS movement. As Ice says, “They do not believe that there is a future for national ethnic Israel, nor do they think the modern state of Israel has anything to do with Bible prophecy.” The BDS movement, at its core, is anti-Semitic and promotes delegitimization of Israel.
[1] Ice, Thomas. The Case for Zionism: Why Christians Should Support Israel. 106.
[2] The Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12 and 15 to Abraham and his descendants through Jacob is unilateral and unconditional; i.e., it does not depend on Israel’s performance but only on God’s faithfulness to His unilateral promise.
THE “APARTHEID” NONSENSE
“The people who are talking about apartheid[1] in Israel are talking nonsense.” So declared a black South African pastor who, after an accident, found himself hospitalized in Israel alongside Palestinian Muslims and Jews, all receiving equal care.
Characterizing Israel as an apartheid state is a charge frequently heard from the numerous churches, religious organizations, and NGOs that endorse the BDS movement. It often appears explicitly in their official documents and resolutions. The “apartheid state” mischaracterization is one of the presupposed assumptions underlying the BDS movement, a complete fiction that is uncritically accepted by many of its followers as well as many naïve church-goers.
Other religious leaders in the BDS movement are not naïve but simply dishonest and cynical ideologues who want to bring down Israel the same way economic tactics succeeded in bringing down the old South Africa in the 1990s. More to the point, they really don’t want to change Israel. Their real agenda is to eliminate Israel entirely. Author Gerald Steinberg writes, “The attempt to label Israel as an illegitimate ‘apartheid state’ is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination among the nations.”
Kenneth Meshoe, a black member of the South African parliament, states emphatically, “I know that nothing is happening in that country [Israel] that can be compared to apartheid in South Africa.” Meshoe, who was born in Pretoria under apartheid, speaks from experience. “We know what apartheid really was. What we suffered in South Africa is not being suffered by anyone in Israel…. Non-Jews in Israel have everything that we non-whites in apartheid South Africa never shared with the white South Africans.”
Meshoe adds, “The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a lie about Israel, and it is a lie about the real apartheid.” To those who propagate the slander, he says, “You are damaging the chance for peace in the Middle East and… you are destroying the memory of the real apartheid.” As Gerald Steinberg puts it, “In reality, the analogy and rhetoric are absurd, and they demean black victims of the real apartheid.” He points out, too, that “the ‘Zionism is apartheid’ propaganda is also used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and the efforts to deny Israelis the basic human right of self-defense….”[2]
The comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel is ridiculous, a case of apples and oranges. As Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says, “Israel is not like South Africa in any way.” Yet the “apartheid” slander persists, facts notwithstanding, because it is a useful propaganda theme for the purpose of demonizing and delegitimizing Israel as well as denying Israel’s right to exist.
Author and journalist Benjamin Pogrund was born in Cape Town in the 1930s and left South Africa only after being forced out for his critical journalism. Since then he has lived more than a dozen years in Israel. He writes, “I am acutely aware of Israel’s problems and faults, but it is nothing like South Africa before 1994.” He cites “pass laws” that limited where blacks were allowed to live and work, torture and detention without trial by the security police, and starvation and malnutrition in the rural areas.
In apartheid South Africa, any black who needed medical treatment and was fortunate enough to find a white doctor willing to treat him had to enter the clinic or hospital through the back door and get inferior treatment. There is no such discrimination in Israeli medical facilities.
In Israel there are non-Jewish judges, teachers, professors, even members of Knesset, as well as others holding high positions in all professions and occupations. In apartheid South Africa, non-whites were systematically banned from all such opportunities. They were deprived of the right to vote and choose their own leaders. Israeli citizens, both Jews and Palestinians, have these civil rights in full.
Blacks under apartheid were the overwhelming majority of the population of South Africa. Yet they were not citizens and they lived under severe restrictions. Even the basic right to life was trampled on. The government disrespected their human rights so much that blacks could be killed for protesting against its policies. In Israel, on the other hand, Arabs are a minority, but they have equal rights as citizens.
“Zionism and the revival of national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland are not manifestations of European colonialism, in contrast to the white settlers… who created Johannesburg and Pretoria,” writes Steinberg. And while black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment….”
As black South African parliament member Kenneth Meshoe observes, there would have been no need for armed struggle in South Africa, and no need for Nelson Mandela to go to prison, if conditions under apartheid had been comparable to the human rights situation in Israel. In addition to the right to vote, Mandela fought for fundamental rights including freedom of movement and travel, freedom to live where one chooses, freedom of access to medical facilities, and the right to education. In Israel, those rights are already in effect for all Israeli citizens without discrimination.
From its beginning, the Zionist movement has held an egalitarian mentality, rejecting social class hierarchy structures. The idea was that no one, no social elite, was above doing useful labor. Otherwise, said Ben Gurion, “this will not be our homeland.” That egalitarian ideal has continued to shape Israeli society and culture. It stands in stark contrast to the racially oppressive and brutal, rights-denying character of apartheid. The two models of society could hardly be more opposite.
There is a caveat, though, when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian territories as differentiated from Israel per se. Those areas have their own governing authorities whereby they manage their own affairs. In fact, they don’t just want their own separate state. Disputing Israel’s right to exist, they advocate Israel’s destruction and refuse to give up terrorism. As a result of this hostile intransigence, Israel cannot take the self-destructive step of extending citizenship to the Palestinians in the territories, which would amount to de-facto annexation. But the fact that the territories are governed separately from Israel does not imply by any stretch of the imagination that Israel is an apartheid state.
Benjamin Pogrund, after acknowledging some of Israel’s faults, writes: “But from my perspective, there is none of the institutionalized racism, the intentionality that underpinned apartheid in South Africa. So why does the BDS movement insist otherwise?” His conclusion: “For them to propagate this analogy in the name of human rights is cynical and manipulative. Their aims would eliminate Israel.”[3]
[1] Apartheid, of course, is an Afrikaans word meaning racial segregation. But it denotes a whole system of brutal oppression.
[2] Steinberg, Gerald, “The Apartheid Propaganda,” Jerusalem Post, 24 August 2004.
[3] Pogrund, Benjamin. “Why Israel Is Nothing Like Apartheid South Africa.” New York Times Op-Ed, 31 March 2017.
THE ULTIMATE BONE OF CONTENTION
“Jerusalem is, without doubt, the ultimate bone of contention,” declares international law scholar Jacques Gauthier. He says that a title search in The Law of Nations shows that the Israeli ownership of Jerusalem is res judicata, decided law. (Gauthier, YouTube, “Who Owns Jerusalem?”)
“By denying a Jewish history and a Jewish Temple, the Palestinians are also denying Christianity its heritage. For without a Jewish Temple, the events of Jesus could not have taken place.” So writes author Barry Shaw. He notes that BDS churches subscribing to Replacement Theology have no problem with that. “Leaders of the Methodist, Anglican, and some Baptist churches fall in line with the Palestinian argument against Israel.” (Barry Shaw, Israel, Reclaiming the Narrative)
The Palestinians and their credulous followers in the BDS-supporting Western churches blatantly propagate the twin falsehoods that Israel has neither a legal claim nor a historical connection to Jerusalem. They use that line to promote the idea that Jerusalem should be divided or internationalized. Leftwing Israeli politician Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former foreign minister, revealed their deeper assumption: “At the deepest level, they are not ready to recognize that we have any kind of title here.” (Shaw, Reclaiming)
Let’s look at the Palestinian BDS claims in light of the legal and historical facts. In 2001 Ikrima Sabri, the Mufti of Jerusalem, audaciously lied to Die Welt, saying that “in the whole city, there is not even a single stone indicating Jewish history.”
In contrast, at various times plenty of Arab and Islamic sources have been more honest about it. In 1930 the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem published a booklet called “A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif” (the Temple Mount). It states that the Temple Mount’s “identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute.” Multiple similar examples can also be found. Even the Qur’an talks about Solomon’s construction of the first temple (34:13) and the destruction of the first two temples (17:7). (Bard, Mitchell, in “Myths and Facts”)
Recently we’ve seen attempts by BDS supporters to claim that the Jews have no authentic historical connection to Jerusalem. As Prime Minister Netanyahu quipped in his 2016 address to the United Nations, “That’s like saying that the Great Wall of China has no historical connection to the Chinese people.” The Palestinians are so fanatical about denying Israel’s historical connection to Jerusalem that they resort to destroying material evidence by massively excavating under the Temple Mount. Their BDS-aligned partners in Western religious circles go right along with this dishonest madness.
The Mandate for Palestine was passed in 1922 by the League of Nations and confirmed afterward by the United Nations. It has never been superseded. As an article of international law, it detailed what the boundaries were to be for Palestine as a Jewish national home. Those same legal boundaries continued to exist after the Jewish state succeeded the Mandate in 1948. Jerusalem is entirely within those boundaries. Therefore, quite simply, Jerusalem is within the boundaries of Israel.
At the end of the 1948 war, in which five Arab countries invaded Israel, Israel had control of western Jerusalem, while Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem. However, Jordan had acquired that control by illegal aggression and continued to hold it illegally for 19 years until 1967 (during which time a ceasefire agreement was in effect). Jordan’s broader occupation and annexation of Judea and Samaria was also illegal. Moreover, in violation of the armistice agreement, Jordan refused during those years to allow Jews into eastern Jerusalem. Because of that, eastern Jerusalem became known in popular conception as “Arab” Jerusalem.
The outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War reinforced Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. Rejecting Prime Minister Eshkol’s peace offer to Jordan, King Hussein mounted an attack on Israel anyway. Of course, Israel defended itself, resulting in Jordan losing control of the West Bank and Jerusalem (gained by aggression in 1948). This victory allowed Israel to extend its jurisdiction and administration to eastern Jerusalem. Based on the principle that a state acting in self-defense has greater right to a territory than an aggressor attacking the territory, distinguished international lawyer and later president of the International Court of Justice, Stephen Schwebel, stated, “Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.”
Ironically, the Palestinians insist on returning to the “1967 border,” the same ceasefire line that Jordan had insisted was temporary in 1949. Indeed, the armistice line was never a border; it was expressly temporary. But by an absurd stretch, the Palestinians base their claim on the premise that the real estate was Jordan’s and therefore it’s theirs – as if the Palestinians were identical to Jordan. Jordan and the Palestinians are in fact two different entities. The armistice agreement was between Israel and Jordan, two sovereign nations. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians. So there is no legal reason to divide Jerusalem.
The Qur’an makes no explicit reference to Jerusalem, and Muslims praying in Jerusalem turn their backs to the Temple Mount, facing Mecca. So why is the Palestinian national movement so adamant about displacing the Jews and establishing Islamic sovereignty over Jerusalem? As Barry Shaw observes, it’s not so much about their own claims, but about using their interpretation of Islam to further their political agenda: “It’s all about destroying Israel and planting their Palestinian flag over Jerusalem as a statement of conquest.” Sadly, that would appear to be just fine with the pro-BDS Christian denominations who are driven by their Replacement Theology with its implicit anti-Semitism.
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.