OCCUPATION?
The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein...
Psalm 24:1
Last week I wrote about the threat of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Movement to Israel. There are those who claim that it is not the threat of BDS we should be focusing on but rather Israel's settlement policy and the 'occupation' of the West Bank (Samaria and Judea). In recent times the BDS movement itself has been focusing on this issue to gain support, even though their aims are not merely to get Israel to leave these areas, but to establish Palestinian rule from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, in other words, to completely destroy the State of Israel.
The 'occupation' and the settlements are a topic of hot debate in Israel, and criticism of these policies are a legitimate part of the democratic process. The issues however are extremely complex and solutions to the problems difficult to find.
The bottom line however is that, as I quoted above, the whole earth, and all that is in it, belong to the LORD. We are all temporary settlers and occupiers of the lands in which we dwell. We live in them only by the grace of God. It is He who raises up kings and rulers, and governs the nations and the peoples. As the prophet Daniel spoke to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon,
"the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will"...
Daniel 4:17
Similarly Yeshua (Jesus) said to Pilate,
You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above."
John 19:11.
The only nation to whom the LORD promised a particular area of land on this Earth, in perpetuity, is the nation of Israel. He first made this promise to Abraham,
Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
So they came to the land of Canaan. Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.
Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.
Genesis 12: 1, 6-7
Later, after Abram's period in Egypt, he came to the mountains of Israel and stood between Bethel and Ai, and the LORD again spoke to
Abram and said,
Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are – northward,
southward, eastward and westward; for all the land which you see I will give to
you and your descendants forever.
And I will make your descendants as the dust of the
earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your
descendants also could be numbered.
Arise, walk in the land
through its length and its width for I give it to you
(Genesis 13:14-17).
Note here that the emphasis is on the land that God would
give Abram and his descendants forever. God’s promises to Abram and his
descendants are not airy-fairy things but down-to-earth practical and real. The
land and the people, and their calling as the chosen nation, are all inextricably
tied together.
And God confirmed this when he made a solemn covenant with Abram saying,
To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates...
Genesis 15: 18
This too is the first time the
precise boundaries of the Promised Land are defined and they stretch from the
River of Egypt in the south and to the River Euphrates in the north. The River of Egypt was traditionally understood to be the easternmost
branch of the Nile River delta, the Pelusian arm of the Nile (1).
Pelusium was a border town of Egypt. This means that the whole of the Sinai
Peninsula would have been included in the Promised Land. More recent
commentators suggest that the River of Egypt is what is now known as Wadi Arish (2),
which lies some 60km from the southern border of the Gaza Strip today. This
confusion may have come about because the Pelusian arm of the Nile no longer
exists. It became choked with sand as early as the first century BC (3).
The Wadi Arish interpretation would exclude the Sinai Peninsula from the
Promised Land of Israel. However Wadi Arish is a ‘wadi’ (in Arabic) or ‘nahal’
(in Hebrew), a term denoting a watercourse that dries up in the summer months -
one that flows only intermittently. The word used in the Bible is ‘nahar’, meaning
a river that flows all the time. This would seem to count against the Wadi
Arish interpretation. During the reign of King David, Israel controlled the
area from the River of Egypt and the Gulf of Aquaba (on the Red Sea) in the
south to the Euphrates River in the north (4).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Davids-kingdom.jpg/400px-Davids-kingdom.jpg
And God confirmed the granting of this area to Israel when he made a solemn covenant with Abram saying,
To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates...
Genesis 15: 18
When Abram was 99 years old the LORD appeared to him again, renamed him Abraham, confirmed his covenant with him and said,
Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
Genesis 17: 8
It is interesting to note, that in spite of the promises God made to Abraham regarding the Land, Abram did not seize it by might or aggression, but acted humbly and lawfully towards the inhabitants of the land. The only land he ever actually owned was Sarah's grave site
When Abraham's beloved wife, Sarah, died Abraham was living in Kiriat Arba (Hebron) amongst the Canaanites. Owning no land of his own, he went to the leaders of the city and asked them to sell him the cave of Machpelah for Sarah's burial;
If it is your wish that I bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and meet with Ephron the son of Zohar for me, 9 that he may give me the cave of Machpelah which he has, which is at the end of his field. Let him give it to me at the full price, as property for a burial place among you...So the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field and the cave which was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, which were within all the surrounding borders, were deeded 18 to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the sons of Heth, before all who went in at the gate of his city.
Genesis 23: 8-9, 17-18
God also confirmed His covenant with Abram's heirs, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26: 2-5, and Genesis 28: 13-15), but the people of Israel did not truly take possession of the Land until they returned from Egypt, crossed the Jordan and conquered it under the leadership of Joshua.
You might ask however, if God had given the Land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham for an everlasting possession, then what of the periods in which Israel was exiled from the Land? Though theirs by covenant, Israel's occupation of the land and the enjoyment of its fruits, was always conditional upon their obedience to God. In Leviticus 26 God promises to bless the Land and give it peace from its enemies as long as the people walk in His statutes and keep His commandments, but He also said...
if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me,
28 then I also will walk contrary to you in fury...
I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you;
your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.
Leviticus 26 27-28, 33.
And so it was that during the time of the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah all the people fell into worshipping the false gods of the surrounding peoples, even to the extent that they burned their babies alive to the image of the terrible god, Moloch. What a horrendous abomination! How could God allow it to go on? He couldn't. God therefore brought calamity upon them in the form of the invading armies of the Assyrians and the Babylonians, and most of the population (not all) were expelled from the Promised Land and scattered throughout the nations of the world.
Yet, even as God had promised to scatter them among the nations, he also promised to bring them back when they repented of their evil.
‘But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,
41 and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies;
if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—
42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;
I will remember the land...
44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them;
for I am the Lord their God.
45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:
I am the Lord.
Leviticus 26: 40- 45
And so it was, after 70 years had passed, the LORD brought a remnant of the people of Israel back to the Land, though many of those scattered have remained amongst the nations to this day. The remnant, mostly of the former kingdom of Judah and a small number from the kingdom of Israel, rebuilt the Land and lived there until the time of Yeshua, but then they rejected Him bringing upon their heads exile once more. In the year 70 AD they were expelled again from the Land, this time by the Romans. This ushered in the Times of the Gentiles when the gospel was taken out to all the world, a period lasting almost 2000 years. But even this second exile was not to be forever. Again God promised he would bring them back to the Land and this time, he would bring them back while they were still unrepentant, but once in the Land, He would bring them to their knees before their enemies and only then would Yeshua be revealed and they would repent. (for more on this see my posting entitled "Dry Bones").
After the destruction of the Temple the Romans attempted to wipe out all Jewish influence and so renamed Jerusalem Aolia Capitolina, and the Land, Palaestina. Around 330 CE the Roman Emperor converted to Christianity and the Byzantine Empire ruled the Eastern Mediterranean lands, including 'Palestine'. In the year 632 AD, the Muslims captured Jerusalem and Palestine and Jews were permitted to return to Palestine. Muslim rule continued for nearly 400 years until the Crusaders invaded, massacring many Jews in the process. The Crusaders ruled for around 100 years until the Muslims regained control in 1187 AD. The last of the Crusaders left in 1291AD. From then until 1917 Palestine was under Muslim Rule (5).
A remnant population of Jews continued to live on in the Land throughout all the centuries, mainly in Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safad (Sfat). At the time of the Crusades in the 11th Century AD at least 50 Jewish communities were known, including in Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea and Gaza (6) In 1516, during the time of the Ottoman rule, 'as many as 15, 000 Jews lived in Safad alone and Jerusalem was a predominantly Jewish city. At this time the Muslims of Jerusalem 'scarcely exceed[ed] one quarter of the whole population' , according to the British Consul of the time (7).
And so it was that at the beginning of the 19th Century CE (AD) the Land of Israel lay desolate, an almost empty, poverty stricken backwater of the Syrian Province of the Ottoman Empire. The total population of the Land prior to the first wave of Jewish immigration was thought to be around half a million (8). Mark Twain, in 1867, described it thus
"There is not a solitary village throughout its (the Jezreel Valley) whole extent - not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings ... (in reference to the Galilee) these unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness, that never, never, never do shake the glare from their harsh outlines, and fade and faint into vague perspective; that melancholy ruin of Capernaum; this stupid village of Tiberias, slumbering under its six funereal palms... We reached Tabor safely ... We never saw a human being on the whole route. ...Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho the accursed lies in a moldering ruin ... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and their humiliation.... Bethsaida and Chorzin have vanished from the earth, and the "desert places" around them ... sleep in the hush of a solitude that is inhabited only by birds of prey and skulking foxes" (9)
An 1857 communique from the British Consulate in Jerusalem reported that " the country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population" (10). Alan Dershowitz in his book "The Case for Israel" (5 p. 27) notes,
The myth of a stable and settled Palestinian-Arab-Muslim population that had lived in villages and worked the land for centuries, only to be displaced by the Zionist invaders, is simply inconsistent with the recorded demographic data gathered not by the Jews or Zionists, but rather by the local authorities themselves.
Prior to the 1880s, the population of the Land was dwindling as a result of poverty, disease and migration. In 1861 it was reported that "depopulation is even now advancing' (11) and in 1866 that in certain parts of the country land was going out of cultivation and whole villages are rapidly disappearing" (12)
So it was, fleeing the persecutions and anti-Semitism of Europe, the first modern Jewish settlers arrived in Israel during the 1880s. They did not seize the land for settlement by force but purchased it from the owners, in the main absentee landlords, for an agreed price. The land thus purchased was often considered uninhabitable and had been abandoned by its owners. As the Jewish settlements got established, they drained the malarial swamps, irrigated the fields, improved healthcare and provided jobs, and this in turn caused encouraged a flood of Arab immigrants into the area. For example, the settlement of Rishon L'Tzion, of 40 Jewish families attracted more than 400 Arab families into the area, where they established a new village on an abandoned ruin (13). Alan Dershovitz (5 p. 28) concluded that
... it is beyond reasonable dispute - based on census figures, authoritative reports, eyewitness accounts, and simple arithmetic - that the myth of the displacement by the European Jewish refugees of a large, stable, long-term Muslim population that had lived in that part of Palestine for centuries is demonstrably false.
In the following years several more waves of Jewish refugees from Europe came and settled in the Land and, by the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the area was occupied by a mosaic of Jewish and Arab settlements. The Balfour Declaration stated that
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country (14).
Who were these other Arabic speaking inhabitants of the land? For a clear discussion of this question see the link below:
Some facts emerge:
- At the time of the first Zionist waves of immigration the Land was scarcely populated, mainly by poor, tenant farmers and nomadic Bedouin, and this population was dwindling,
- The Jews did not occupy the land by force, but bought land, often at extortionate prices, from absentee Arab landlords, who willingly sold it,
- The land bought by Jews was often the poorest quality land, such as the malarial swamps of the coastal plain and Hulah Valley,
- The economic success of the new Jewish settlements drew in many Arabs from the surrounding lands attracted by jobs, better sanitation and medical services.
There was no Palestinian people. Although some individuals may have been descended from families living in the land for hundreds of years, the vast majority were newcomers.
During the First World War the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany and in 1917 the British allies captured Jerusalem and all of Palestine fell under British rule. In the same year, British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour issued the "Balfour Declaration" promising to establish a Jewish State in the land of Palestine. From 1917 until the end of the Second World War hundred of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe, many of whom were Holocaust survivors, immigrated to the Land. The Arabs carried out several revolts against British rule and the changing demographic. The worst was the 1936 Revolt which lasted 3 years.
Following the Second World War Britain handed over the question of the Land to the United Nations which devised a Partition Plan to divide the area into two nations, one Jewish and one Arab. Jerusalem was to remain under international control. Reluctantly the Jewish leadership accepted the plan but the Arabs of Palestine and the other Arab nations rejected it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg/2000px-UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg.png
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly accepted the Partition Plan with 33 votes in favor to 13 against. On May 14th, 1948 the British mandate formally ended and the declaration of the modern state of Israel was proclaimed. The very next day a confederation of Egypt, Jordan and Syria together with expeditionary forces of Iraq attacked the tiny fledgling State. When an armistice was signed 10 months later, Israel had not only retained all the area allotted to it by the Partition Plan but had conquered 50% of that allotted to the Arabs, and west Jerusalem, and Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip. It is strange we hear very little about that occupation of Palestinian lands!
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/1949linesnick.gif
During the course of the 1948 war, about 750,000 Arabs fled or were driven (it depends who you talk to) from their homes and became refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. These refugees were not assimilated into those countries and about one third of them and their descendants, now numbering about 1.5 million, live in United Nations (UNWRA) run refugee camps to this day. Less well known is the fact that at the same time, a roughly similar number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries and many settled in Israel where they successfully integrated into the general population.
In the years following there were a series of wars, all initiated by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters and these resulted in more land being conquered by Israel. In 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike against the gathering forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. In the war that followed Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Old City, and the Golan Heights.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/Documents/map%20story%20part1.pdf
Was it legitimate that Israel occupied these conquered lands? I believe so. I believe that when any people or nation embarks upon the course of warfare with its neighbors it forfeits its rights should it lose that war. It has been so since the dawn of human existence and so it is in every part of the world today. Every nation that exists today occupies its land by right of conquest. Why should Israel be different?
Nevertheless, bowing to international pressure, Israel has since 1967 relinquished control of both the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. What has been the result? The Sinai Peninsula, neglected by Egyptian government, has degenerated into a 'no man's land' ruled and terrorized by terrorist groups which launch attacks on Egyptian interests and Israel. The Gaza Strip has fallen into the hands of Hamas, a Salafist terrorist organization, and even worse, is falling more and more under the influence of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS). What would happen if Israel were to relinquish control on the West Bank? Would the fate of its inhabitants be any different than those of the Sinai or Gaza? Israel cannot risk having the West Bank fall under the hegemony of Hamas or IS.
All this begs the question of the occupation. I would like to raise the question " Who is occupying whose land?" The Bible is clear, the Land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates was unequivocally given to the people of Israel for an everlasting inheritance. But what of the Arabs who live there? I believe that the Bible is clear on this point too. When strangers in the land chose the LORD God of Israel, and abide by His law, they have a place in the Land.
Thus you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. 23 And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance,” says the Lord God.
Ezekiel 47: 21-23
It should be noted that the word here translated 'stranger' is in Hebrew 'ger', which literally means immigrant. There is much debate about the precise meaning of this word in the Bible; does it merely mean a resident alien or does it mean a convert? In the ancient pagan world gods were linked to geographic areas and therefore it was usual for any immigrant to adopt the gods of the people with whom he lived. Consequently it would probably have been understood that anyone who chose to live in the Land of Israel would necessarily worship the God of Israel. It was so for Ruth who in accompanying her mother-in-law returning to the Land of Israel, she gave up her Moabite gods and chose the God of Israel. God blessed her, gave her and her descendants, an inheritance in the land, and she became the grandmother of King David and a forebear of Yeshua (Jesus), the Messiah. So it was too for all the 'mixed multitude' of Egyptians who chose to flee Pharaoh with the Israelites at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 12: 38). They chose the God of Israel and were incorporated into the people of Israel. As it says in Psalm 2,
Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him
Psalm 2: 10-12.
Within the borders of Israel today many Arab residents own lands and enjoy the full rights of citizens. They enjoy a general standard of living much higher than anywhere in the Arabic speaking world, and equal standing under the law of the land. There is no apartheid. I live and work with Arabs, we use the same shops, we travel in the same buses and stand in the same long lines in government offices.
So what of the settlements? Do Israelis have the right to settle in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? One of the most serious accusations against Israel is that it seizes privately owned Palestinian land. If this is so, it would not only be illegal but immoral. On the other hand, if the land is purchased fairly and according to the law from willing owners, then why not? But is it? The issue of land ownership is incredibly complex in this region. There are three legal systems under which land ownership is registered - the Ottoman, the British and the modern Israeli system. Large tracts of unoccupied land was gifted to villages and tribes during the period of Jordanian occupation. None of this land was purchased, most never used, no taxes were paid and the original recipients now dead. According to both the Ottoman and British Mandate law, gifted land could not be inherited without approval by the sovereign, and land that was given by the sovereign could be claimed as private only if the land was used continually (usufruct) for 10 years and taxes were paid.Unused land reverts to the sovereign by law. Jordan changed this law and registered the land as privately owned, permanently, without conditions, but since Jordan was never acknowledged as the legitimate sovereign over this territory, its laws have no validity (16). So whose land is it?
The bottom line is as I began, the land is the LORD's and he will dispose of it according to His will, and he promised it to Israel. Are the settlements lawful and morally defensible? There is no easy answer to that. Are they God's will for Israel at this time of history? That is another question and I think only time and history will provide the answer.
Whatever the truth in all this, one thing is sure, it is much more complicated than the simplistic claims of the BDS movement and their supporters. Nothing in this region is black and white. Below I have printed in full an article from Ynetnews which provides arguments with which to counter the claims of the BDS movement.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_of_Egypt
- ibid
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelusium
- http://www.bible-history.com/map-davids-kingdom/map-davids-kingdom_near_east.html
- http://www.questionsaboutislam.com/history-of-islam/history-palestinian-israeli-conflict.php?print=1
- Katz, Shmuel. Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. Taylor Productions Ltd., 1974 (ISBN 0-929093-13-5), pg. 97
- James Finn to the Earl of Clarendon, January 1, 1858 in Albert Hyamson, The British Consulate in Jerusalem (London: Jewish Historical Society, 1941)
-
Dershowitz, Alan " The Case for Israel" 2003 John Wiley and Sons
- Twain, Mark "The Innocents Abroad" Oxford University Press, NY, 1996 pp. 485,508,520,607-608.
- James Finn to the Earl of Clarendon, September 15, 1857 in Albert Hyamson, The British Consulate in Jerusalem (London: Jewish Historical Society, 1941)
- J.B.Forsyth. A Few Months in the East (Quebec; J Lovell 1861)
- H.B. Tristram The Land of Israel: A Journey of Travels in Palestine (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1866)
- A. Druyanov Ketavim Letoldot Hibbat Zion v' Yeshuv Eretz Yisrael ( Tel Aviv 1919, 1925, 1932 vol 3 pp 66-67)
- http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20balfour%20declaration.aspx
- Dershowitz, Alan " The Case for Israel" 2003 John Wiley and Sons p. 27
- http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Israel-stealing-private-Palestinian-land-385917
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4665412,00.html
Exposing the lies of BDS
Op-ed: Many a good person has fallen for the persuasive arguments of the boycott campaign, which appears to be driven by respect for human rights. But the truth is far more nefarious.
The "Fighting the Boycott" campaign launched by Ynet's sister publication, Yedioth Ahronoth, has sparked numerous reactions and questions – some challenging and significant.
They attest to the challenges posed by the BDS movement. The questioners are not anti-Semites. A portion of the BDS supporters are falling under the spell of the movement because it purports to be tackling a real problem.
Yes, the Muslims and Arabs are killing Arabs and Muslims as a matter of routine, and far more than any operation by Israel – and it's only intensifying. But the focus on Israel, some critics of the country argue, stems from the fact that Israel is a democracy. There are other questions and issues too – concerning the occupation, human rights, the settlements, the blockade, and more.
And look, says the man on the fence to himself, the occupation has been around for decades, and there's no peace and no hope. So perhaps the non-violent approach offered by the boycott campaign is in fact the right way?
BDS demonstration in Melbourne, Australia, 2010 (Photo: Reuters)
Let's try to answer some of these questions – because they represent the questions of many a good man and woman who are being sucked into the rhetoric of the BDS campaign not out of hatred for Israel or anti-Semitism, but because they truly believe in human rights, non-violence and fixing the world. They deserve answers.
Perhaps the problem is the occupation and not the BDS campaign?
This appears to be the most widespread argument among those who understand, explain and justify the boycott. Omar Barghouti, a leader of the BDS campaign, was once asked: Will an end to the occupation also bring an end to the campaign? "No," he replied bluntly.
More importantly, the BDS campaign wasn't suspended even for a moment when Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni spoke for Israel. They actually wanted to end the occupation. It didn't work out for them.
| BDS Movement |
|
| It's time for an Israeli counterattack against BDS lies / Noah Klieger |
|
Op-ed: Israel must finally wake up and stop letting its enemies win on the propaganda front.
|
| Read full op-ed |
|
|
|
Would an agreement with the Palestinians silence the BDS movement?
On the contrary. The initiators and leaders of the campaign are opposed to a peace settlement based on two states for two peoples. Their guiding principle is the so-called right of return, which would mean an end to Israel; and one of their main slogans reads: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
Thus, we need to find a compromise, and we need to fight for a settlement and peace – and that's exactly we also need to oppose the boycott campaign.
Perhaps the BDS campaign is intensifying because Israel has rejected the peace proposals?
In early 2001, Yasser Arafat went to the White House and turned down Bill Clinton's peace proposal. In 2008, Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar proposal from Ehud Olmert. And in March 2014, Abbas again said no – this time, to a proposal drafted by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Therefore, even if the lie about Israeli rejectionism is repeated a thousand times, it still remains a lie.
Perhaps the fact that Israel continues to build settlements is proof that it doesn't want peace?
The settlement enterprise is the focus of intense public debate within Israel. Not every piece of criticism aimed at Israel is demonization; and criticism of the settlement enterprise is certainly not demonization.
In any event, the construction in the West Bank, for the most part, is taking place inside the existing settlement blocs, which even under Clinton's proposal will remain in Israeli hands. Justified criticism is one thing, but support for BDS is a different story altogether.
Egyptian campaign to boycott Orange for its operations beyond the Green Line
Perhaps it's worth trying the non-violent BDS approach in light of the failed diplomatic efforts and armed struggles?
A campaign led by people who deny Israel's right to exist cannot hide under a blanket of "a non-violent campaign." Negating Israel's right to exist is "politicide," political annihilation, a blatant violation of international law. We're not dealing with a fight for rights, but a fight rather to single out and deny one particular nation's right to self-determination.
Perhaps international pressure is a legitimate means to achieve political goals?
International pressure is a legitimate tool. Therefore, and as unpleasant as it may be, the European Union has every right to pressure Israel vis-à-vis the settlements, to mark products and the like. But don't get things mixed up.
There's a big difference between international pressure designed to promote a peace settlement and the BDS campaign, the stated aim of which is to oppose any peace arrangement based on two states for two peoples.
Just because Iran and North Korea violate human rights, does that mean Israel can do so too?
Violating human rights is unjust, regardless of the national or religious identity of the state. The problem is that while dozens of countries are involved in conflicts and human rights violations, an international campaign is being waged almost exclusively against just one country – Israel.
Hypocrisy isn't morality. Double standards aren't standards. The criticism aimed against Israel isn't criticism; it's racism.
And what about the blockade on Gaza?
Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip. It didn't want a blockade. The blockade isn't against the residents of the Strip; it's against the supreme effort on the part of Hamas to acquire weapons. A flourishing and prosperous Gaza Strip is in Israel's interests. The BDS movement and Hamas have other interests at heart.
There are many more questions; and some of the claims against Israel are indeed justified. Feel free to ask anything you like. The dialogue has just begun. To be continued.
