Responses to Frequently Raised Allegations Against Israel

RESPONSES TO FREQUENTLY RAISED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ISRAEL

Israel imposes harsh military rule in the West Bank that denies Palestinian human rights.

No military occupation is completely benign. There are restrictions on Palestinian life in the West Bank. But these restrictions are not imposed arbitrarily. They are necessary to provide security for Israeli civilians who have been the target of repeated terrorist attacks by Palestinian extremists in the West Bank. Especially after 9/11, Americans fully understand that there are restrictions and burdens that accompany the need to protect against violent extremism.

The elected Palestinian Authority (PA) exercises authority over 98% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank. This is in accordance with the Oslo Accords, which give Palestinians civil administrative control over 98% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank in Zones A and B. In recent years, the PA police force, trained with the help of the United States, and Israeli security personnel, have developed a close partnership in fighting terrorism. This has led to an alleviation of the restrictions placed on residents of the West Bank. Over the past several years there has been significant increase in permits issued to travel to Israel, as well as a reduction in eligibility criteria.

Israel has continued an occupation for 50 years, depriving Palestinians of their right to national self-determination.

We recognize the right of the Palestinians to dignity and national self-determination in an independent state of their own, just as the Jewish people are entitled to national self- determination in Israel. The goal of two states for two peoples—embraced by the U.S. and international community and the only viable solution to this conflict—can only be achieved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties. Israel has offered to sit down unconditionally with Palestinian leaders to discuss all the permanent status issues: borders, security, settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees. We hope Palestinian leaders soon will agree to participate in such negotiations.

The Six-Day War was instigated by Israel as a “land grab” opportunity.

Israel did launch a preemptive strike in the Six-Day War against Egypt and Syria. However, this was a legitimate exercise of self-defense based on events leading up to the June war. Egypt had closed off the Red Sea’s Tiran Straits to Israeli shipping, itself an act of war. It had ordered UN peacekeeping forces out of the Sinai. Egypt and Syria signed a military alliance and began to mass hundreds of thousands of soldiers on Israel’s borders. The leaders of both countries were calling publicly for Israel’s destruction; the international community did nothing to intervene. Israel was left with no choice but to act for the sake of its survival.

This Six-Day War 50th Anniversary Package was created by the Israel Action Network (IAN), a strategic initiative of The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) in partnership with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA).

Responses to Allegations Page 1 of 6

On its eastern front, Israel urged Jordan to refrain from entering the war. Nevertheless, King Hussein ordered Jordanian forces to move against the Israeli military. As a result of the fighting, Israel gained control over the West Bank and all of the city of Jerusalem, including holy places to which access had been denied to Jews between 1948-67.

Under Israeli control, the rights of Christians and Muslims have been severely restricted, including religious sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence states that “[Israel] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion.” This statement includes the religious rights of Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem. While Jews were prevented from visiting and praying at their holiest sites before 1967, since then Israel has ensured respect and freedom for all religious groups, imposing restrictions on access only to prevent specific threats to security. The more concerning threat to religious freedom is from Palestinian and Arab leaders, who have used UNESCO and other international bodies to deny the Jewish historical and religious connection of Jews to their holy sites, including the Temple Mount/Haram al- Sharif.

Israel has long maintained a siege of Gaza, causing untold human suffering to millions of Palestinians.

There is undeniable suffering in Gaza because of the blockade, although independent experts contend that it has been exaggerated for political purposes. But the background must be understood. Israel unilaterally withdrew all civilian and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in 2005. This was followed by the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas taking control of the territory, first through legislative elections in 2006, followed by a violent coup in 2007. Hamas, which continues to govern Gaza, is by its constitution committed to Israel’s destruction. Hamas and its allies have fired over 20,000 rockets into Israeli population centers since 2005. Israel’s legal blockade of Gaza exists to prevent weapons, or other items that can be converted to weapons, as well as fortifications from reaching the hands of Hamas. Despite its war with Hamas, Israel still allows hundreds of trucks a day into Gaza with humanitarian aid and other vital resources, but the reality is that the people living there will not be able to truly thrive until Hamas’ control over Gaza comes to an end.

In summer 2014, a war began between Israel and Hamas after Hamas claimed they had attempted to start a “third intifada” in the West Bank, which resulted in the murder of three Israeli teens. Both Hamas and Israel began rocket fire against one another, resulting in war. During this time, Hamas did absolutely nothing to protect its own citizens. They hid their rockets in United Nations schools and hospitals. While Israel used an anti-missile system to protect its own citizens, Hamas used their people as human shields. The group itself has admitted their

Responses to Allegations Page 2 of 6

use of such facilities, located in residential areas, as places to store weapons claiming they had no choice.

Additionally, entry into Israel from Gaza has increased significantly. A monthly average of 13,832 exits was recorded in the first six months of 2015, compared to a monthly average of 6,270 exits the year before. As of August 2016, Israel has introduced a quota for older adults to travel from Gaza for a few hours on Fridays, via shuttle, to pray in Jerusalem. Israel has also announced it would allow Gaza residents to travel abroad via the Allenby Bridge without restriction, subject to signing a pledge not to return to the Gaza Strip for at least a year. Gazan travelers will be escorted to the Allenby Bridge, and will need permission from Jordan to enter.

The Egyptian government also controls entry into Gaza through the Rafah Border Crossing, which has only been open intermittently since 2014 due to their escalating tensions with Hamas. To blame Israel exclusively for the suffering that is occurring in Gaza is to shield Hamas and Egypt from their accountability.

Since 1967, Israel has built a wall on Palestinian lands in the West Bank and set up an intricate system of checkpoints, making travel between communities almost impossible.

While there is a separation barrier between the much of the West Bank and Israel, it was not put up to make Palestinian lives more difficult. It was built to protect Israeli civilians from a brutal campaign of terrorism—the so-called Second Intifada—which began in 2000. Statistics have shown that violence against citizens of Israel, including suicide bombings and other violent attacks, has decreased dramatically since the barrier and checkpoints were put in place. Having to choose between creating travel restrictions for Palestinians and protecting Israeli lives is difficult, but, unfortunately, necessary in a situation where Palestinian terrorist groups continue to threaten civilians with violence. The reduction of terrorist violence also creates an environment that is more conducive to peacemaking efforts. It is important to note that, as violence has decreased, many West Bank checkpoints have been removed. In July 2008 there were 42 checkpoints; now there are 12, making it easier for Palestinians to travel freely within the West Bank.

The window for a two-state solution essentially has closed due to aggressive Israeli settlement building and land expropriation, along with disproportionate use of water and other resources, in the West Bank.

Israel did not make a commitment to cease settlement building when it signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. This issue is to be negotiated between the parties along with other permanent status issues, including borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem.

Responses to Allegations Page 3 of 6

That said, Israeli settlements cover roughly 2% of the land of the West Bank, with more than 60% of the settlement population living in five blocs adjacent to the pre-1967 border: Ma’ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, Givat Ze’ev, Ariel and Modiin Ilit. These five areas constitute less than 40 square miles, or roughly 1.7% of the West Bank. It is expected that these blocs would be become part of Israel proper as part of a permanent two-states agreement based on the 1967 borders with “swaps.”

Other less populated settlements outside the blocs could be dismantled and their residents relocated, as in Sinai when Israel reached a peace accord with Egypt in 1979, and in Gaza when Israel withdrew unilaterally in 2005. It is also possible that Jewish Israelis will be allowed to remain in their homes in a Palestinian state, just as there are Palestinian Arabs living as citizens in Israel.

The U.S. abstention on United Nations Resolution 2334 shows that settlement activity is the barrier to peace

In U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent address, he did shed light on the Obama administration’s perspective on the various types of settlements. One of the major criticisms of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was that it lumped all settlement activity together, including building in Eastern Jerusalem and the Old City, making no distinction between settlement building in areas that are widely understood to remain under Israeli sovereignty and those that would likely become part of a future Palestinian state. Secretary Kerry acknowledged that Israel would, indeed, hold on to territory as part of mutually agreed upon land swaps, but that Israel cannot make such a determination unilaterally prior to negotiations. Thus, the current U.S. stance represents a clear departure from that of the Bush administration, which was willing to make a distinction between settlement blocs and outlying settlements. Neither administration, it should be pointed out, held that the settlement blocs were off the table in negotiations.

The "so-called" Israeli peace offers were not serious. They would have forced Palestinians to live in enclaves (bantustans) without a contiguous state.

For many years after 1967, Israeli governments sought to reach a territorial compromise on the West Bank with Jordan. The 1993 Oslo Accords fundamentally changed the peace process dynamics, and from that point on Israel and Palestinian leaders have sought to achieve a permanent status agreement that would lead to two states for two peoples. The issues to be negotiated are: borders and security, refugees, settlements, and Jerusalem. Over the years since Oslo, Israeli representatives have made generous offers to the Palestinians and were prepared to assume risks for the sake of reaching a final peace agreement.

1. Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with President Bill Clinton at Camp David in 2000. To achieve peace, PM Barak agreed to a series of concessions,

Responses to Allegations Page 4 of 6

including Israeli withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank; the subsequent creation of an independent Palestinian state in those areas; Palestinian rule over East Jerusalem and most of the Old City; and 'religious sovereignty' on the Temple Mount. In exchange, the agreement called for Arafat to declare an end to the conflict and a prohibition of future claims on Israeli land. Arafat rejected the proposal and made no counter-offer.

2. As a follow-up to the Camp David Summit, the Israelis and Palestinians met at the Taba Conference in 2001 to come to an agreement on a Palestinian state. Israel offered 94% of the West Bank in addition to select Israeli land, culminating in an offer of 97% percent of the total land area requested by the Palestinians.

3. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an offer in which the Palestinians would receive nearly 100% of the West Bank and Gaza after land swaps with Israel (Israel asked for annexation of 6.3% of territory, with the PA receiving 5.8% of Israeli land as compensation); a territorial link between the West Bank and Gaza (which would remain sovereign territory of Israel but have no Israeli presence); and the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Overall, this plan would call for the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers, including those from the significant settlements of Kiryat Arba, Beit El and Ofra, as well as the Jewish community in Hebron. PA President Mahmoud Abbas later admitted that he had rejected this peace offer.

Responses to Allegations Page 5 of 6

This map below shows what would be accomplished if this plan had moved forward:

As part of the peace initiative launched by Secretary of State John Kerry, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was widely reported to have agreed in 2014 to continue negotiating final borders on the basis of the 1967 lines with swaps. But the talks were abruptly suspended when President Mahmoud Abbas entered into a unity government with the terrorist organization Hamas.

Responses to Allegations Page 6 of 6