Israeli Myths Challenged (Part I)

Arjan El Fassed is a Political scientist and human rights activist. He currently works as staff member of a Dutch development organisation.
He is a co-founder of the Palestine Right of Return Coalition (PRRC), member of the al-Awda Media Committee, and wrote extensively on international law and human rights, Palestinian politics, the role of the European Union.

Disclaimer: The following article is supplied in the interests of presenting facts from an Arab perspective and is in no way meant to reflect any bias or anti-semitism on this website.

Israel does not obstruct Palestinians from receiving medical treatment

Myth

The Israeli occupation forces have systematically conveyed false information on "misuse of ambulances by Palestinian gunmen", thus inciting Israeli soldiers, settlers and the general public to attack ambulances and medical personnel. In addition Israeli spokesmen repeatedly claim that no obstuction occurs for Palestinians requiring medical treatment.

Facts

To date the Israeli occupation forces have not been able to document a single episode in which Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS, the Arab World's version of Red Cross) personnel were involved in any activities other than the discharging of their duties to attend the injured and dying.

On the contrary, on 29 September 2000, PRCS medical personnel rescued Magan David Adom (MDA, the Israeli version of the Red Cross) paramedics from attacks; on 24 October 2000, PRCS paramedics administered first aid to injured Israeli soldiers near Jerusalem, and on 24 March 2001, PRCS were on the scene to treat an Israeli soldier after he was accidently shot and injured by another Israeli soldier (pictured right).

Israel's occupation forces regularly block and prevent PRCS ambulances and medical personnel from performing their duties, as well as complicating the delivery and supply of medical goods and equipment.

One of the most troubling incidents occured on 26 October 2000, when Israeli soldiers dragged injured Palestinians from ambulances and beat them. This happened again on 19 March 2001:

After responding to an emergency call of a motor vehicle accident near Aram Checkpoint (North of Jerusalem), and transporting the victims to Hadassah hospital, today at around 1 pm, PRCS emergency medical technicians (EMT) were stopped, arrested and beaten. The Israeli police at the checkpoint physically and verbally abused the EMTs, and aggressively searched the ambulance, hurling its contents in the street. Throughout the episode, the EMTs were threatened with lengthy detention. They attempted to force one of the medics to sign a document written in Hebrew. When the head of the PRCS EMS Ramallah station drove to the scene to intervene, he was also beaten and detained. This lasted for two hours, and the EMTs were later released after the intervention of the ICRC who were asked to intervene by PRCS HQ. Upon their release, the EMTs were again threatened by the police and soldiers and told that upon their next emergency call the Israeli soldiers will be waiting and will get their "revenge".

Source: "PRCS Medics Beaten Again, Ambulance Vandalized by Israeli Soldiers", PRCS press release, 19 March 2001.

Responding to emergency calls has become a life-threatening hazard for medical personnel.

Since the beginning of the emergency situation on September 28th, 2000 and throughout the ensuing clashes, Israeli troops (and often Israeli settlers) have repeatedly targetted PRCS ambulances, buildings, and personnel.

Pictured right: A PRCS ambulance that was shot at with live ammunition on on 8 October 2000 by Israeli settlers, while transporting an expectant mother in labour. Four bullets hit the ambulance and penetrated the windshield and side door. No injuries were reported.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), reporting on the period 29 September 2000 -17 January 2001, there were 101 attacks on ambulances, 50 instances of damage to ambulances (some more than once, 67 percent of the entire fleet), 65 Emergency Medical Personnel (EMS) injured and 1 killed, and 109 violations and restrictions on ambulance access.

By 6 April 2001, the PRCS reported the total number of recorded attacks on PRCS ambulances during the current crisis had reached 127, with damage caused to 57 vehicles (some more than once, 76 percent of their fleet) and EMS injuries had risen to 91.

In addition, the PRCS national headquarters in Ramallah/Al-Bireh came under attack from the Israeli army on December 31, 2000. Damage was caused to the building and six vehicles parked at the entrance. Another attack was reported on February 8th 2001.

On January 18th 2001, PRCS reported that "ambulances continue to be subjected to aggressive searches at roadblocks, medics have been held and threatened at gunpoint, and emergency medical vehicles continue to come under fire. PRCS is now appealing to its international partners to provide bulletproof vests for EMS technicians and medics."

International humanitarian law

The right of the sick and wounded to receive prompt medical attention is one of the most basic principles of humanitarian law. Regardless of political circumstances, occupying forces are obligated to permit the wounded and sick to be "collected and cared for", and should accord them "particular protection and respect" according to Article 16, Fourth Geneva Convention.

The right of the injured to humane treatment and prompt health care is unequivocally implicit in the principles of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 10(2) of Protocol I clearly states that

"in all circumstances they [the wounded and sick] shall be treated humanely and shall receive, to the fullest extent practicable and with the least possible delay, the medical care required by their condition. to guarantee these rights, the transportation of the wounded to medical facilities must also be granted special "respect and protection"

Even in times of war, humanitarian law requires all parties to a conflict to reach agreements regarding the evacuation of the

"wounded, sick, infirm ... children and maternity cases ... from besieged or encircled areas"

(article 17, Fourth Geneva Convention). This obligation does not cease simply because the occupying forces impose a prolonged closure.

As a general rule, medical personnel must be allowed to enter areas under closure, and the transportation of the wounded and sick in the course of such measures should not be impeded (Articles 63, 56, 55, Fourth Geneva Convention).

Medical personnel "of all categories" must be allowed to carry out their duties and at all times should be "respected and protected". Article 63 of the Fourth Geneva Convention grants protection to those with humanitarian agencies such as the international committee of the red cross, the red crescent and other relief societies. This injunction prohibits physical mistreatment or other forms of reprisals against such persons for providing medical treatment to the population.

Despite such clear regulations encoded in binding international legal agreements, to which Israel is a signatory, the Israeli occupying forces have targetted, harassed, delayed and obstructed health workers and local residents attempting to collect the wounded and transport them to hospitals.

In the most infamous incident from the current Intifada, emergency medical technician Bassam Balbeisi, 45, was shot dead by Israeli troops on 30 September 2000 while trying to attend to Jamal Al-Dura and his son Mohammed (right), whose injury and killing were broadcast around the world after a France 2 television cameraman filmed the event.

Israel has always looked for peace

Myth

Official Israeli statements usually refer to Israel's willingness to trade land for peace, at the same time as Israeli leaders say they will never return to the 1967 borders. Israel claims that everything is negotiable and it would withdraw from territories pending a peace agreement recognising its security requirements.

Facts

First, "Israel", the state, is unique in being geographically different from "Israel", the land. When the state of Israel was established its international bounderies were intentionally left undeclared and undefined. To this day Israel has not declared its borders. Official maps, though, indicate what Israel believes its borders should be.

UNSC 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in the 1967 war. Israel says that it has accepted UNSC 242 in principle; but its actions are to the contrary. First, Israel considers the territories occupied to be a part of "Eretz Israel" ('The Land of Israel') and shows no intention of withdrawing. Secondly, since 1967 successive Israeli governments, under both the Labour Party and the Likud, have established colonial settlements on occupied lands and introduced heavily-armed settlers in the area. These settlements are in deliberate defiance of other UN resolutions and of international law which prohibits such settlements on occupied land. Thirdly, Israel has already annexed two portions of the occupied territories, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, thereby annulling its professed willingness to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Israeli officials often cite Israel's withdrawal from the Egyptian Sinai as an example of its good faith in negotiating "land for peace". They fail to mention that Israel does not consider Sinai a part of "Eretz Israel" and that a tactical withdrawal served a strategic purpose, namely, neutralising Egypt and Israel's southern front in order to solve its Palestinian problem in the West Bank and eliminate the PLO in Lebanon, and that the United States provided what amounts to a US$3 billion bribe to secure the diplomatic victory of the Egyptian-Israeli agreement at Camp David. The United States also built two new air bases for Israel for free.

The signing of the Oslo accord between the PLO and Israel in 1993 was hailed as an historic moment inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence for both parties. However, it did not offer even a hint of a solution to the basic problems which exist between Israel and the Palestinians, either in the short run or down the road. Its operative meaning became still more clear after the May 1994 Cairo Agreement, which ensured that the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority would remain squarely within Israel's economic fold and that the military administration would remain intact in all but name. Though subject to Israel's decisions on all matters of any significance, Palestinian authorities were granted one domain as their own: they have exclusive responsibility for anything done or not done, meaning that they agree to take upon themselves the debilitating costs of the occupation, from which Israel profited enormously, and to assume a continuing responsibility for Israel's security.

Signing another Israel-PLO agreement in 1995, Arafat once again bowed his head before the infinitely stronger opponent. This agreement left over half the West Bank under absolute Israeli control and the status of another 40 percent delayed for several years, during which time Israel continued to use US political and economic aid to create facts in the routine matter and influenced the future outcome of any final settlement. The flaw is not in Israel expanding and building new Jewish colonies. It is in those who signed agreements which don't give them a chance or a right to stop such action.

Finally, in early 1997, the Hebron Protocol succeeded in blowing away any final hope that some Palestinians possessed deep inside. Even worse than the deal itself, is the legally totally unbinding attached 'Notes for the Record', since most know how many letters and promises of this kind litter the past.

The peace process from an Israeli point of view is all about normalising Israel's existence in the ('New') Middle East. The purpose of Palestinian self-rule, from this perspective, will remain to unburden Israel of the role of direct occupation. It therefore needed a loyal Palestinian leadership with enough authority to be accepted by the Palestinian population. Israel might have thought or still thinks that the Palestinians can be convinced that this is the best they can achieve.

In early 1997, an agreement titled the "National [Labour-Likud] Agreement Regarding the Negotiations on Permanent Settlement with the Palestinians", was signed between former (Labour) minister Yossi Beilin and Likud's parliamentary faction head Michael Eitan, showed the Israeli consensus in the so-called 'final status negotiations' with the Palestinian Authority. This agreement was based on the bottom-line:

Based on this nothing remains open for negotiation in the so-called 'final status' talks except for a modification of the agreements already reached at the interim phase.

Proposals put forward by Israel and the United States at Camp David in 2000 fell far short of implementing 242, would have left Israel in possession of large parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the old city, and ignored the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Far from being "generous," Barak's proposals avoid most of Israel's most important obligations under international law and were a non-starter. By refusing to live up to its obligation under 242, withdraw from all the occupied territories or allow the refugees to finally go home, it is Israel which has prolonged the conflict and blocked the only viable solution.

The "peace process" has not brought peace to the Palestinians, or statehood, or liberation, or even a better standard of living. It has brought only a continuation of the military occupation, a succession of broken Israeli promises, and a response by the international community -- especially the United States -- that stands steadfast behind one plank of "land-for-peace" and shows little interest in the other. The Palestinian people can hardly be expected to simply accept a status quo based on the ongoing denial of their most basic human and national rights with no end in sight. Americans would not accept any such situation for themselves and ought not ask this of any other people.

Israel "made the desert bloom"

Myth

Israel and its supporters claim that Zionist settlers transformed the land from a barren desert into a fertile land of milk and honey. Hence, they hold that Palestinians only became interested in their own state upon witnessing the purported "successes" of Zionist attempts to develop and revitalize the land. This stance also provides some Zionists with justification for their claim that the Palestinians had not been good stewards of the land, and thus did not deserve to have any rights to it.

Facts

Israel's claim that it "made the desert bloom" is a wild exaggeration that vastly overstates the extent of Jewish achievements while grossly underestimating Palestinian cultivation and the natural fertility of Palestine.

Climate

Only half of the area of Palestine has a true desert climate. This area consists of the Negev desert, stretching south from Bi'r as-Saba' to the Gulf of Aqaba. The remaining half of Palestine has a typical Mediterranean climate, and enjoys substantial rainfall for half of every year (roughly October to April). The soils in this second area of Palestine are naturally fertile. The average annual rainfall in Tel Aviv, for example, totals 539 mm., 639 mm. in Nazareth, and 486 mm. in Jerusalem.

Agricultural development prior to Jewish immigration

It was the Palestinians who expanded agricultural production and sustainable and environmentally appropriate techniques during the 18th and 19th centuries before the arrival of European Jewish settlers. The success of Palestinian agrigulture is best illustrated by olive horticulture in central Palestine, which constituted the basis of the region's productive economy in the 18th century (see Beshara Doumani's book, Rediscovering Palestine). Cooking oil, lamp oil, soaps and other products derived from Palestinian olive trees enriched many areas during this period, particularly that of Nablus.

The 'Israeli' Jaffa orange

Another example is the Jaffa orange. Now assumed as an Israeli product, this orange species had already been developed by Palestinian agriculturalists before the Zionist colonisation of Palestine began in earnest. In 1886, the American consul in Jerusalem, Henry Gillman, called attention to the excellent quality and superior grafting techniques of Palestinian citrus farmers. "I am particular in giving the details of this simple method of propagating this valuable fruit [the Jaffa orange] as I believe it might be adopted with advantage in Florida" (US Government, Documents of the Jerusalem Consulate (Gillman to Porter), 16 December 1886.

Land under cultivation prior to 1947-48 War

By 1930, all the land capable of being cultivated by the indigeneous Palestinians with the resources available to them was already under cultivation (Frances Newton, Fifty Years in Palestine, Coldharbor, 1940, p. 253). Sir John Hope Simpson undertook a comprehensive study of Palestinian agricultural potential in 1930. He concluded that

"it has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlements by new immigrants"

(Palestine, Report on immigration, land settlement and development, Sir John Hope Simpson, cmnd 3686, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930).

By the end of the British Mandate in 1947, the total land area under cultivation by Palestinian farmers (excluding citrus) was 5,484,700 dunums, whereas the area cultivated by Jewish farmers was only 425,450 dunums. The expansion of the cultivated area offered in the Israeli repertoire is grossly exaggerated. The figures have been doctored by including, as reclaimed land, the huge areas of farmland left behind by the Palestinian refugees expelled by Israel in 1948.

Subcommittee II of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, established in September 1947 issued a report in November 1947 which stated under item 63:

"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land ownership in Palestine. The total Arab land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...] The following figures are of particular interest:

CATEGORY OF CROPS                            OWNERSHIP

                                        Arabs           Jews (in dunums)

Citrus                                135,368        139,728

Bananas                                 1,843          1,079

Plantations                         1,052,222         94,167

Taxable cereals (categories 9-13)   5,653,346        869,109

Taxable cereals (categories 14-15)    823,046         67,839

"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewish State, and own the bulk of the land"

(Source: Doc. C74 UNSCOP Report to the UNGA, Documents on Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 165, PASSIA, December 1997).

Some historical references to Palestinian agriculture, from the 10th Century to 1946

"Palestine is watered by the rains and the dew. Its trees and its ploughed lands do not need artificial irrigation. Palestine is the most fertile of the Syrian provinces"

[Guy Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems (Beirut, Lebanon, Khayat, 1965), 28.].

Before he died in 986 AD, Muqqadisi, who lived in Jerusalem, told of Palestine produce that

"was particularly copious and prized: fruit of every kind (olives, figs, grapes, quinces, plums, apples, dates, walnuts, almonds, jujubes and bananas), some of which were exported, and crops for processing (sugarcane, indigo and sumac)"

[quoted in Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984), 28-29.}

"no part empty of delight or profit"

[quoted in Richard Bevis, "Making the Desert Bloom: An Historical Picture of Pre-Zionist Palestine," The Middle East Newsletter, Vol. 2, Feb.-Mar., 1971, p.4].

"the fields would do credit to British farming"

[quoted from James Reilly, "The Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, 1981, p. 84].

Between 1856 and 1882, the German geographer Alexander Scholch found that in those years,

"Palestine produced a relatively large agricultural surplus which was marketed in neighboring countries," and to Europe

[Alexander Scholch, "The Economic Development of Palestine, 1856-1882," Journal of Palestinian Studies, Vol 10, No. 3, 1981, 36-58].

In 1887, Lawrence Oliphant visited the Esdralon Valley that prompted him to marvel at the

"huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive"

[quoted from Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, ed., The Transformation of Palestine (Chicago, IL: Northwestern Press, 1971), 126].

In 1893, the British Consul advised his government of the value of importing trees from Jaffa to improve production in Australia and South Africa

[Beheiry, p. 67].

In 1939, Palestine exported over 15 million cases of citrus fruit

[A Survey of Palestine, Vol. 1, 337].

In 1942, Palestine produced nearly 305,000 tons of grains and legumes

[A Survey of Palestine, Vol.I, 320].

In 1943, Palestine produced 280,000 tons of fruit, excluding citrus fruits

[Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944-45, 226].

In 1945, Palestine had over 600,000 dunums of land planted with olive trees, producing nearly 80,000 tons of olives, and accounting for 1 percent of the olive oil production for the WORLD [Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944-45, (Department of Statistics, Government of Palestine), 225], and produced nearly 245,000 tons of vegetables. [A Survey of Palestine, for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Vol.I, 325-26].

In 1946, Walter C. Lowdermilk, Assistant Chief of US Soil Conservation Service, examined Palestine, and compared it to California, except that

"the soils of Palestine were uniformly better"

[Palestine's Economic Future: A Review of Progress and Prospects (London, UK: Percy Lund Humphries and Co., Ltd., 1946), 19-23.

The Israeli occupation is justified for 'security' reasons

Myth

Israel argues that the West Bank and Gaza provide defensible lines and greater warning in the event of an attack. Moreover, Israel links its security to the settlements present in the occupied territories. Some Israeli commentators point to the October 1973 war to justify how necessary it is for them to retain the lands occupied in 1967. Otherwise, they argue, they would have to fight the war on their 'borders' or inside 1967 Israel.

Facts

Israel's justification of military occupation under the rubric of "security" is an attempt to equate a political aspiration with a legal right. "Security" may be a political bargaining chip, but it is not a legal basis for Israel's continued presence in the occupied territories. Israel's arguments stands logic on its head: it was after all Israel's own refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories that led to the 1973 war. Secondly, the more settlements established on occupied territory, the more land is needed to provide "security". There then can never be, under this logic, any withdrawal or trading land for peace.

Israel's concern with "security" is a camouflage for the expansion of its borders and increasing colonisation. Real security for Israel would be more likely found in recognising the Palestinians' right to exist and by implementing various UN resolutions.

Israel's refusal to make the withdrawal from the territories occupied, envisaged by UNSC 242, as one of the main requisites for peace in the region, purports to be based upon Israeli security. Israel's claim that it is exercising its inherent right of self-defence by its continued presence in the Westbank and Gaza does not correspond with the facts of the present situation. the continued occupation by Israel is not proportionate to the threat to it. The response of Israel is excessive and the threat not immediate.

As long as the Palestinian population's resentment of what it perceives to be the theft of its land is compounded with genuine fear and distrust of Israeli soldiers and settlers, security will never be a viable concept for either side of the dispute.

If the Israeli government is sincere about its wish to see the end of such clashes, it must stop using the word "security" as justification for the innumerable human rights violations and antagonistic actions of its forces.

In the case of crowd control when confronted by Palestinian unrest or demonstrations, the Israeli security forces have often been criticised by human rights organisations for their heavy-handed methods, which have frequently proved to aggravate such situations rather than contain them. Time and again, these methods have resulted in unnecessary death and widespread injury by increasing the friction and intensity of the events.

"SECURITY" TODAY

In the confrontations (that began in September 2000) between the Israeli occupying forces and mostly unarmed Palestinian civilians, there is hospital evidence to prove that Israeli soldiers had fired live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. The Israeli army also made use of helicopter gunships, which gives rise to the suspicion that their intention was to kill and injure, rather than to subdue or contain the protests. Injuries were noted in the heads and chests of the majority of those who died.

The use of these types of warfare and weapons were not only inflammatory, but also unjustifiable. IDF open-fire regulations categorically state that:

"it is absolutely forbidden to fire rubber ammunition at a range of less than 40m. Firing a rubber ammunition projectile will be at a specific target and will be aimed only at the legs of a person who has been identified as a rioter or stone-thrower."

Popular uprisings are the inevitable result of the physical and psychological pressure induced by heavy military and settler presence in Palestinian population centres.

The Palestinians' desire to protest en masse under such circumstances is not a sign of their lawlessness and savagery, as Israeli mythology would have us believe, but rather a classic human reaction to oppression. At these times, the concentrated presence of soldiers with guns, who become symbols of that oppression, can only serve to exacerbate such a situation, resulting in chaos and disorder that could not be contained by any police force and certainly not by the under-resourced Palestinian police force.

Assaults on Palestinians by Israeli security forces are not confined to the confusion and heat of mass uprisings. There have been several reports of unnecessary violence towards unarmed civilians, sometimes resulting in death, at checkpoints and other places where confrontation takes place between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians.

Unfortunately, such attacks generally go unpunished by the Israeli authorities. As a result, some soldiers, who may hold extremist views and a loathing of Palestinians, sometimes feel inclined to vent their fury against people they encounter, secure in the knowledge that the legal repercussions of their actions will be slight. Even those who do face charges are usually released on bail.

As the occupying authority in the region, the Israeli government has a responsibility to protect the Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories. However, there have been no concrete steps taken to prevent or intervene in violent or illegal acts against Palestinians perpetrated by Israeli settlers. With the attitude of so many soldiers towards Palestinians being, at best, one of indifference, at worst of racism and hatred, the situation seems hopeless.

In the event of attack by settlers, Palestinians have little or no recourse to justice, nor can they hope for protection or security from the Israeli army or police force. Incidents in which a complaint is not filed are not investigated, even when there is evidence to suggest that a crime has taken place; the Israeli police often refuse to accept complaints from Palestinians, or actively obstruct their efforts to file them.

In light of all this, it is no wonder that extremist and racist settlers feel that they are acting with the protection and support of the Israeli authorities and security forces when they commit acts of violence against Palestinian people.

The common reaction to any form of trouble or unrest perceived to have been started by Palestinians is to increase "security" measures, or to restrict the free and safe passage of Palestinians beyond their checkpoints. Whole towns have been placed under siege by the Israeli security forces, as was the case after the 1996 uprisings. There have been many occasions when Palestinians have not been permitted to leave their towns or villages to go to work, pray or visit relatives, even in the case of extreme emergency.

The number of Palestinians killed in the five years since the Oslo agreement highlights an urgent need to improve Palestinian security. In order to be fair and effective, any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians must contain a commitment by the Israeli government to guarantee the security of Palestinian civilians.

The Israeli government insists that the security of Israeli citizens is of paramount importance and that until the PA can guarantee to enforce that security, there can be no further progress towards peace. However, such measures as described above seem actively to destroy the chances of security for the Israelis as well as the Palestinians. Violations of human rights do not improve security. Instead, they backfire, reinforcing feelings of resentment and hatred.

The Israeli occupation was a 'liberation' of land

Myth

Israel has declared that its objective in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is to abide by the principles of international law. Israel maintains that the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it captured in 1967, were "liberated" and therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to its occupation army nor to its settlement policy.

Facts

In 1967, Israeli armed forces occupied the Palestinian West Bank (including the eastern part of Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip, along with the Egyptian Sinai peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Although Israel claims it is not a belligerent occupier, both the United Nations and the United States consider Israel to be a belligerent occupant of the West Bank and Gaza and hold the position that he Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Israel's occupation of the territories captured by force in the June 1967 war.

According to the laws of belligerent occupation, the occupying state must preserve the laws which were previously in force in the area occupied. Article 23 (g) of the Hague Regulations forbids the occupying power "to destroy or seize enemy property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war". Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention declares that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies".

Israel continues to systematically violate significant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These violations have been directed against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Syrian civilians in the Golan Heights. The Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention include, in part, the following:

Systematic torture, in violation of articles 27, 31, 32, and 147;
Collective punishment, including home demolition, closures and restrictions on movement, in violation of articles 33 and 53;
Prolonged closures that lead, for example, to loss of income from employment, without providing alternative sources of income for the residents in violation of article 39;
Massive establishment of settlements and the transfer of Israeli settlers to occupied territory, in violation of articles 49 and 53;
Detention and imprisonment of residents of the occupied territory in detention centres located within Israel, in violation of article 76;
Administrative detention of thousands of Palestinians for prolonged periods, grossly exceeding the provisions of article 78, in violation of article 49;
Revocation of residency rights in occupied East Jerusalem, in violation of article 47;
Expropriation and exploitation of the natural resources, including water, in the occupied territory to meet the needs of the occupying power, in violation of article 55.

With regard to the Palestinian Authority and its limited self-rule, Israel as the occupying power remains bound by the provisions of the convention "for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such power exercises the functions of government in such territory". Additionally:

"protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present convention by any change introduced, as a result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the occupying power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory".

Israel has violated most articles of the UDHR, the ICCPR, and other treaty bodies and violated of the Oslo Agreements which state that "Israel and the Palestinians shall exercise their powers and responsibilities...with due regard to internationally accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law" (Art. 14 Gaza-Jericho Accord; Art. 19 Interim Agreement "Oslo II"). As article 28 of the UDHR states: "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration can be fully realized".

Palestinians who have lived under occupation for 33 years are being denied sovereignty and meaningful control over their own lives in a state of their own. Under the Oslo process Palestinian human rights have been sacrified to Israel's security concerns. During the 33-year-long occupation, Israel has refused to implement the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Security Council resolutions, and various Covenants and Protocols of International Law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories

Myth

Israel has consistently argued that the key phrase in UNSC 242 , which calls upon Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in 1967, does not mean that it must withdraw from all the territories it seized during military hostilities.

The resolution calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", i.e., the June 1967 War. Israel points to the omission of the definite article "the" in the phrase "from territories occupied", to support its claim that it is not required to withdraw from all the occupied territories, but only those necessitated by the establishment of "secure and recognised boundaries" (to which reference is made subsequently in the resolution). Hence, Israel argues that it is entitled, within the terms of the resolution, to retain East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Facts

Israel's interpretation of 242 is invalidated by its disregard of the fact that the references in the resolution to "withdrawal" and to "secure and recognised boundaries" are subject to the general principle, encoded in international law, of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" which is stated in the preamble of the resolution and which governs all that follows.

UNSC 242 specifies in preamble paragraph 3 "...all member states in their acceptance of the charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter," which establishes the principles upon which members are required to act in furtherance of the purposes of the organisation, specified in Article 1. Among the principles of Article 2 is "members must fulfill their Charter obligations in good faith." Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights is a manifest case of Israeli belligerent occupation of a territory of a foreign state, namely Syria, the sovereignty of which is not in dispute. UNSC 242 calls for the "withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

It thus follows that Israel, as a matter of legal obligation and in compliance with its charter obligations, must withdraw its occupation forces from the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza, and the Golan Heights. Meanwhile, Israel is obligated to observe the laws of occupation encoded in the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which it is a signatory.

The significance of the missing "the" is that the resolution was drafted so as not to exclude minor modifications of the pre-1967 borders which might be mutually agreeable to Israel and its neighbors, provided that such modifications did not materially violate the general principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The classic statement of this interpretation of the resolution was furnished by former US Secretary of State William Rogers in 1969:

"We believe that while recognized political bounderies must be established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes in the existing lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not support expansionism. We believe troops must be withdrawn as the resolution provides."
-- New York Times, 11 December 1969 --

This statement is on record as the official position of the US government. Israel rejects this interpretation.

The undeniable fact is that the French (and Russian) texts of UNSC 242, which are equally authentic as UN records, do not omit the definite article "the" from the phrase "from occupied territories". As argued above, the English text does not specifically exclude the possibility of total withdrawal; it merely leaves the door open to something less. it does not speak of withdrawal from "some" or "parts" of the occupied territories. It specifies "withdrawal from territories occupied."

Israel's consistent "creation of facts" on the ground, in the form of colonial settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, constitutes clear evidence, along with statements by various israeli leaders, that Israel, alone among the members of the United Nations, refuses to accept the legitimacy and binding legal obligations of UNSC 242.

Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel

Myth

This Israeli myth negates the rights of the Palestinian majority in the city, the city's multicultural history and status as a focal point for the three monotheistic faiths, and fails to note that, by Israel's own actions, the city has been divided -- the eastern part of the city de-developed and treated differently than the western part. Owing to the scope of this subject, this factsheet is by necessity "under construction" and the information offered below should be taken in that light.

Facts: Jerusalem's international status

The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.

This remains the official international status of Jerusalem, despite Israel's plans for the city.

On 13 December 1948, the Israeli government proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital."

On 11 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly again called for the demilitarisation and internationalisation of Jerusalem in Resolution 194. Although this resolution was never implemented, its provisions on the special status of the city and the right of Palestinian refugees to return have been reasserted by the Assembly virtually every year since 1948.

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 49 of the Convention specifically forbids settlement in these territories:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

In the war that began on 5 June 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.

On 11 June 1967, the Israeli government made the decision to annex occupied East Jerusalem.

On 27 June 1967, the Israeli Knesset empowered the government to extend "Israeli law, jurisdiction, and public administration over the entire area of the Land of Israel." Under this authority, 72 square kilometers (only 8 percent of which was part of Jordanian Jerusalem), were placed under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality, effectively annexing the area to Israel.

On 30 July 1980, the Knesset passed "The Jerusalem Law," reaffirming the 1967 de facto annexation and declaring the "complete and united Jerusalem" to be the capital of Israel.

all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith.

Jordan was and is the Palestinian state

Myth

Israel and its supporters claim that a Palestinian state already exists in Jordan. They point out that the Palestinians have a large population in Jordan.

Facts

This myth is based on the Zionist argument that the territory of Palestine embraced Transjordan. However, the 1922 Mandate map does not possess any special authority that overides a people's legitimate rights to self-determination.
The population of Jordan is ethnically different from that of Palestine. The Palestinians were descended from peoples that invaded or settled in Palestine both before and after the Arabs in the seventh century. The Jordanians (the Hashemites) were mainly descended from Arab tribes of the northwestern part of the Arabian Peninsula. Palestine and Jordan were also distinguishable by the fact that Transjordan was mostly nomadic while Palestine had 800 villages and two dozen towns.
The Balfour Declaration, to which Zionists often refer, did not promise that all or even part of Palestine should become THE Jewish national home. It merely declared sympathy with the Zionist goal of creating a Jewish home IN Palestine.
What is important here is not the Balfour Declaration, which had no legal validity, but the Mandate, which carried the authority of the League of Nations. Article 25 the Mandate clearly provided for the exclusion of Transjordan from the scope of the proposed Jewish national home:

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions..."

The British had artificially joined the west and east banks of the Jordan River as a matter of convenience, under a single Mandate.

The argument that Jordan's population consists mostly of Palestinians and that, therefore, a Palestinian state already exists is both disingenuous and cynical. The reason, of course, for the Palestinian presence in Jordan results directly from their expulsion from Palestine in 1948. and the West Bank in 1967.