Answering Zionist Propaganda by Matt Giwer, © 2002 [June] & 2007 [Dec] The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem are disputed not occupied. Regardless of which term one chooses, there is no question the squatters are living on land which is owned by individual Palestinians not by them. There is no dispute of that fact. Israel's Supreme Court says the lands are occupied, in fact under belligerent occupation. The Golan Heights is occupied territory. Syria offered peace in return for the Golan and Israel refused. There is no dispute of that fact either. Jews have a right to live anywhere they choose Not on land owned by others unless with their permission. The unspoken assumption is Jews have this right, Gentiles do not. God gave the land to the Jews I would expect to find no other claim in books written by Jews. No place in the Bible does it say these Jews and this Israel. The settlers are redeeming the land of Israel. Redeeming is a code word for stealing. Settlers is a code word for squatters. As they are stealing, the squatters are criminals. Even by the Bible, Israel was destroyed for the sins of Solomon. What man may act against the will of God? Even by the Bible, Judea was given to Iraq for the sins of the Jews. What man may act against the will of God? America treated the Indians no better than Israel treats the Palestinians. It is good to see Israel is honest enough to admit it is committing genocide and cultural destruction. Israel conquered the land in the 1967 war. Conquest gives military jurisdiction over land. It does not give ownership of the land. The government does not own the land. The last country to claim that was Nazi Germany. Governments do not gain ownership by conquest. In fact Nazi Germany claimed it was regaining ownership of the land. If they had said redeeming the land would it have been permitted? Israel's settlement policy was declared a hanging offense at Nuremberg. Israel abjured the acquisition of land by conquest when it joined the UN and subjected itself to war crime charges thereby. The UN gave Palestine to the Jews No it did not. The UN General Assembly under its power to approve mutually agreed borders approved the partition agreement. There was no mutual agreement. The land was not their's to give unilaterally. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is antisemitic. If the shoe fits, wear it. It is all too complex to deal with in simple terms. So stop using simple terms to defend Israel. Criticizing Zionism is antisemitic propaganda. If Zionism were Judaism, antisemitism would be a moral imperative. Zionism is a secular, political movement. It has nothing to do with Judaism or antisemitism. Even Albert Einstein condemned Zionism. Zionism has the most to gain from antisemitism. Palestinians are acting out of irrational hatred. If Zionists had declared their Israel in New York City they would have been driven into the Hudson River. Americans would have done exactly as Palestinians are doing had that happened. The Palestinians are terrorists. Under international law, all peoples have a right to resist military occupation by any means available. If they are terrorists then so were the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising during WWII. If they are terrorists then so were the founders of Israel. Palestinians have never acknowledged the right of Israel to exist. Israelis have never acknowledged the right of Palestine to exist. Israel has never acknowledged the borders given to it by the UN in 1948. Israel is willing to trade land for peace. The land is not Israel's to give. Israel can have either land or peace, not both. Total land for total peace. We came to live in peace. Only a child could not have foreseen the conflict. To hear Israelis talk you would think they expected a welcome wagon. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Sort of makes one lose faith in democracy doesn't it? Arafat was elected. His election was certified as honest by Jimmy Carter. What more does it take? Lebanon is a democracy. The US says Egypt is a democracy. Iran is more democratic than Egypt. Democracy is on the march in Iraq. Israel is a strategic ally of the US. Perhaps ally in the common meaning of the word but there is not and has never been a treaty of alliance which is the only legal meaning of the word. The Cold War is over. Whatever utility it had during the Cold War is long gone. The relationship was tactical at best, never strategic. Israel was a pawn against Russia's pawns in the middle east. Israel is necessary to provide a safe haven for Jews. Israel is the most dangerous place in the world for Jews to live. Jews who went to live in Israel chose to live in constant danger. No one has ever forced Jews to live in Israel. The stupid ones have always chosen to live in Israel. Israel can do no wrong. That is the first honest thing ever said about Israel. Israel does not have the death penalty. Israel murders people because they are suspected of intending to commit acts of resistance to the occupation in the future. While Israel calls them targeted killings and claims to have knowledge of their intentions, not once has it released any conclusive evidence. All evidence against all of them must be released else the charge is murder. Israel is a Jewish nation. By Israel's own estimate, barely two thirds of its citizens had Jewish ancestors and well under half are Jewish by religion. And this only came about by expelling non-Jews. The US and all Western European nations are more Christian than Israel is Jewish by any measure. It is not clear what is meant by a "Jewish nation" save as an excuse for discriminatory laws against non-Jews. Israel is an outpost of enlightened Western values in the Middle East. Western nations have not declared themselves to be Christian nations as Israel has declared itself a Jewish nation. Such bigotry is contrary to Western values. Israel has a right to build in annexed East Jerusalem and the Old City. No country in the world recognizes that annexation nor the legitimacy of any Israeli construction outside of its 1948 borders including the apartheid wall. But Jordan annexed them both. When Jordan annexed the West Bank it was recognized by only one country in the world, Egypt. When Jordan annexed Jerusalem not even Egypt recognized it.

Setting aside Mr.Giwer's propaganda, I'll simply cut to the proverbial chase of Mr. Giwer's solution towards which his distorted commentary is constructed: "Total land for total peace." In other words, Mr. Giwer argues that Israel must simply cease to exist for there to be peace. No nation can reasonably be expected to consent to its own demise as the price of peace.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Setting aside Mr.Giwer's propaganda, I'll simply cut to the proverbial chase of Mr. Giwer's solution towards which his distorted commentary is constructed: "Total land for total peace." In other words, Mr. Giwer argues that Israel must simply cease to exist for there to be peace. No nation can reasonably be expected to consent to its own demise as the price of peace.

There is very little of Mr. Giwer's disinformation that has merit. I'll just highlight three particularly egregious examples:

President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright both document in their memoirs that it was Syrian President Hafez Assad and not Israel who rejected bilateral Israel-Syria peace.

The UN had full legal jurisdiction to determine the fate of the British Mandate. Britain assigned that task to the UN. Not a single successful case has been brought before the International Court of Justice against that proposition. The documentary paper trail ranging from treaties, League of Nations resolutions, etc. all highlight the legal validity of the UNSCOP process that was ratified by the UN General Assembly.

I suspect Mr. Giwer makes such an absurd claim simply to build the case for his preferred soluton of eliminating Israel. After all, if Israel is an illegitimate country, then it becomes easier to argue for a solution in which Israel's existence would be brought to a close. Nonetheless, Mr. Giwer's legal theory has not been upheld in any international court or by any international body.

There is no comparison whatsoever between Israel's policies and the Nazis' Final Solution. Analogies to the Nazis are absurd and they do nothing but trivialize the catastrophic magnitude of the genocide that took place under the Holocaust.

Originally Posted by sotrueblue Ok, so you dont swallow that bit. Actually Id agree as its impractical to ask Israelis to give everything back, some other form of compensation is required. But do you swallow the rest?

Originally Posted by sotrueblue I cant respect these clowns because they repeatedly try to force half baked lies and assertions on us that everyone can see are completely transparent self serving nonsense. To illustrate, lets take from this piece about Zionist propaganda; Most of these answers I agree with, though a few things are impractical. But the Palestinian haters, the propagandists and the outright dis-informationists of the Israeli right force all of these assertions down our throats on a regular basis. What do think? Are you swallowing or spitting?

Originally Posted by sotrueblue Ok, so you dont swallow that bit. Actually Id agree as its impractical to ask Israelis to give everything back, some other form of compensation is required. But do you swallow the rest?

Originally Posted by Shaefer Ya call me when the Arabs offer compensation to the appx. 1 million Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the entire Arab world and whose property losses FAR exceed that of the so called "Palestinians."

Vader,

Unfortunately, some of those who take the pro-Palestinian population treat the Palestinian and Arab narratives as complete and unchanging truth. Hence, the very idea that there is more to the proverbial story than that of Palestinian dispossession contained in those twin narratives is dismissed out-of-hand, as is the reality of Jewish historic legitimacy. Worse, many of the decisionmakers in the region hold similar positions. That commitment to dogma is a recipe for implacability. It has fueled acts of aggression time and again.

Yet, if one moves beyond those narratives, to take a closer look at the historic Middle East dispute, one finds that Arab rejectionism, not Israeli "occupation," has been the driving force of the historic dispute. The "occupation" commenced only after the 1967 war. Before then, in 1947, one witnessed the Arab leadership rejecting any kind of compromises that fell short of Arab possession of the entire territory held by the British Mandate. After Israel's re-establishment in a portion of the territory, the Arabs launched the 1948 war in a bid to conquer Israel. They repeated their aggression against Israel in 1956 and 1967. Prior to such naked aggression, there was no "occupation." That did not deter the Arabs from their aggressive designs nor their adding the saga of "occupation" to the narrative of dispossession. In reality, "occupation" explains little or nothing. That Israel has given up the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt affirms that Israel does not seek territorial expansion. Instead, if peace is to have a chance to take hold, it is the root cause of Arab rejectionism that must be set aside.

In my opinion, those who actively encourage the Palestinians to hold firm to their narrative and seek to ignore the role Arab rejectionism plays, do no favors for the Palestinians. They merely invite a situation in which a negotiated settlement is rendered all but impractical. Such an outcome does not benefit the Palestinians. While terrorist organizations such as Hamas might successfully exploit the situation to perpetuate their existence, ordinary Palestinians suffer mightily.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Vader, Unfortunately, some of those who take the pro-Palestinian population treat the Palestinian and Arab narratives as complete and unchanging truth. Hence, the very idea that there is more to the proverbial story than that of Palestinian dispossession contained in those twin narratives is dismissed out-of-hand, as is the reality of Jewish historic legitimacy. Worse, many of the decisio nmakers in the region hold similar positions. That commitment to dogma is a recipe for implacability. It has fueled acts of aggression time and again.

Yet, if one moves beyond those narratives, to take a closer look at the historic Middle East dispute, one finds that Arab rejectionism, not Israeli "occupation," has been the driving force of the historic dispute.

The "occupation" commenced only after the 1967 war. Before then, in 1947, one witnessed the Arab leadership rejecting any kind of compromises that fell short of Arab possession of the entire territory held by the British Mandate.

After Israel's re-establishment in a portion of the territory, the Arabs launched the 1948 war in a bid to conquer Israel. They repeated their aggression against Israel in 1956 and 1967. Prior to such naked aggression, there was no "occupation." That did not deter the Arabs from their aggressive designs nor their adding the saga of "occupation" to the narrative of dispossession. In reality, "occupation" explains little or nothing. That Israel has given up the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt affirms that Israel does not seek territorial expansion. Instead, if peace is to have a chance to take hold, it is the root cause of Arab rejectionism that must be set aside.

In my opinion, those who actively encourage the Palestinians to hold firm to their narrative and seek to ignore the role Arab rejectionism plays, do no favors for the Palestinians. They merely invite a situation in which a negotiated settlement is rendered all but impractical. Such an outcome does not benefit the Palestinians. While terrorist organizations such as Hamas might successfully exploit the situation to perpetuate their existence, ordinary Palestinians suffer mightily.