Tom Lennie reviews ‘Israel, Gaza and Hamas: What You Need to Know’, by Gordon Pettie (2024)

But will people see it?

Part 3: Exposing myths about Palestinian identity

‘They scattered my people and divided my land’

One World Government conspiracy?

Exploited idealism and deliberate deception.

Editorial introduction: In the first of two articles, David Longworth looks back over a year of the ‘March of Return’ at the Gaza border.

According to Enas Fares Ghannam,¹ it all started in 2011. A Facebook post expressed the dream of a 33-year-old man in Gaza named Ahmed Abu Ratima. Gazing at a tree on the other side of the barbed fence that separates the Strip from Israel, Abu Ratima had thought, “Why can’t I go and sit under that tree just for a while, like a free bird?” The post asked (rather impractically) what could happen if 200,000 Palestinians headed peacefully to cross the border.

As the Arab Spring swept the region, Abu Ratima and his friends issued a statement entitled ‘The Palestinian Refugees Revolution’, calling all Palestinian refugees to gather peacefully at the nearest point by the Israeli border to call for their ‘rights’. At the time, they were considered crazy. But in 2018, Abu Ratima and his friends found encouragement.

In early 2018, Gazan journalist Muthana al-Najjar, whose family originally hailed from Salama (near Jaffa), pitched a tent near the border. He stayed for over a month, while others began planting olive tree seedlings in the area. But these idealised aspirations were soon taken over by the Hamas authorities.

Public preparations for a mass protest started to appear in February. On the 6^th, Hamas official Isma'il Radwan said that the activity would begin on 30 March and would reach its peak on 15 May, ‘Nakhba Day’.² He stressed that this activity "should take place without clashes [with Israel] in order to protect the young people...The plan of action focused on organizing a march of hundreds of thousands towards the border in order to pressure the occupation."³

Idealism Exploited

On 22 February 2018, the ominous image on the right was posted on Facebook:⁴

The UN symbol and the ‘194’ refer to UN Resolution 194 (of December 1948), which resolved that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” (my emphasis), the so-called ‘Right of Return’. When the resolution was passed it was envisaging those who had just become refugees, not the millions of later generations.

The key evokes memories of those who left having locked their homes and retained their keys: another powerful symbol of ‘Right to Return’. However, notice that the key is held in a red clenched fist, a not-so-subtle suggestion of aggression.

Note also that the area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean is entirely covered by the colours of the Palestinian flag. This image therefore denies not only the territories agreed under the Oslo Accords, but also UN Resolution 181, of 29 November 1947, which agreed the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states.

By 28 February 2018 the Great Return March Facebook page featured a much clearer emphasis on violence, as the left-hand picture illustrates (the text reads, ‘We will strike the Guard Fence’, i.e. the international border security fence).⁵ 

Incitement from the Beginning

At the March’s official start on Friday 30 March, an inflammatory Islamic sermon was preached and broadcast on Hamas’s al-Aqsa TV:

We are very near our blessed land, which is being trampled by those descendants of apes and pigs. We are here to embrace the blessed land with our hearts and our eyes, which is being trampled by those accursed descendants of apes and pigs, the remnants of the brutal, savage, and barbaric colonialism, which continues to drain our resources…⁶

So much for the idealist peaceful origins! By 6 April, three Palestinians penetrated the border and planted two improvised explosive devices.⁷

Worse rhetoric was to follow. Two weeks later, at the March venue, Gaza scholar Khaled Hany Morshid, said:

Khaled Morshid, speaking at the March venue. Video initially released on social media, 14 April 2018. Image from MEMRI, used with permission.…when the Jews of the Qurayza tribe violated their treaty with the Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet Muhammad exterminated them…The best way to describe the record of the Prophet's treatment of the Jews is one of violence and force…This is what all the Muslims should know. The relation between us and them is one of eternal enmity. The Jews will never stop this enmity unless the sword of Jihad for the sake of Allah is brandished, and they are made an example of, as was done by the Prophet Muhammad…I call upon every Muslim: Do not stand idly by and let those Jews spread corruption upon the land. Carry out glorious deeds against them!⁸

Social media posts called Palestinians to clash with Israelis after breaching the fence and entering their communities. 'Emad 'Aql, of Gaza, tweeted, "Sderot is only 700 meters east of [the Palestinian town of] Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza. The headquarters of the Israeli army is there, and houses about 800 pigs. It can be reached in two minutes on motorcycles or in five-eight minutes at a brisk run…Murder, slaughter, burn and never show them any mercy."⁹

The left-hand image was posted with the following text: "Kibbutz Kerem Shalom, east of Rafah, is only 300 meters from the border. It has turkey pens, a football field and a pool, it houses only 15 families. Pounce on them with knives."¹⁰

Deliberate Deception

By May, things were literally hotting up. Thousands of tyres were burned to create smokescreens for those attacking the fence, while mirrors were used to blind IDF soldiers. Meanwhile, Western media were decrying the injuries caused to ‘peaceful protestors’ by Israel’s defensive actions.

On 13 May, the day before the originally-planned climax of the March, Mahmoud Al-Zahhar a co-founder and senior member of Hamas, was interviewed on al-Jazeera TV, Qatar. Questioned about Hamas adopting Fatah’s ‘peaceful resistance’ policy, he replied,

This is a clear terminological deception…This is not peaceful resistance…when we talk about 'peaceful resistance’, we are deceiving the public. This is a peaceful resistance bolstered by a military force and by security agencies, and enjoying tremendous popular support…This deception does not fool the Palestinian public.¹¹

On 16 May, Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, was interviewed for the same channel, saying,

I must emphasize a great strategic goal accomplished on May 14. Our people in Gaza recorded, for the whole world to see, their testimony over the transfer of the United States embassy to Jerusalem and the declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of the occupation entity. On behalf of the Arab Palestinian people and all the Arab and Islamic peoples, our people in Gaza have rejected that decision and that move, by this great activity and by recording its testimony for the sake of history, and by signing this testimony with the blood of the martyrs – our people sacrificed sixty martyrs on May 14, as well as three thousand wounded…Many of them took off their military uniforms and put their weapons aside…¹²

Here we can clearly see the shameless use of ‘martyrdom’ as a motivating factor when inciting aggression against Israel. Sinwar openly admits to satisfaction in the gruesome outcome. Moreover, he also admits that many protestors weren’t ordinary civilians!

The involvement of militants was confirmed in more detail in a broadcast on Baladna TV, Gaza, on the same day, by a member of the Palestinian National Council:

50 of the martyrs were from Hamas, and the other 12 were regular people…What did Hamas gain? 50 martyrs...I am giving you an official figure. 50 of the martyrs in the recent battle were from Hamas. Before that, at least 50% of the martyrs were from Hamas.¹³

Other Tactics

In addition to the above, in the last year tactics have included hand grenades, stones and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) being hurled across the border. Snipers have been in action. Hundreds of rockets and mortars have been deployed.

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, by mid-October almost 3,300 acres of forest and 4,000 acres of farmland had been destroyed by incendiaries carried by kites and balloons from Gaza.¹⁴ In the forest nature reserves, thousands of animals perished and conservation work was set back by decades. Earlier, as the wheat harvest was imminent, the loss of crops by farmers was estimated at £1.4 million. On one kibbutz alone, some 320 acres of irrigation equipment was also destroyed. In addition, honey farms, avocado and jojoba orchards were devastated.¹⁵

Sometimes explosives were carried similarly, such as those attached to gaily-decorated helium balloons which landed close to a kindergarten in late December.

Another tactic has been deception by false news reports and the posting of staged video clips on social media. Of one such incident on 4 May, IDF video footage shows a group of Palestinians rushing away a seemingly-injured man on a stretcher; then, after smoke and bushes provide some screening, the man clearly rolls off the stretcher, gets up and walks away!¹⁶ Also in May, the death by tear gas of 8-month-old baby Layla Ghandour was widely reported. By 26 June it emerged that the father is a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade who admitted that his daughter died from a prior condition and that he had been paid $8,000 by Hamas to lie.

Sadly, the damage of these ‘news’ items is done by their high initial impact, with later revisions mattering little.

Conclusions

Whatever the original intentions of the March of Return, it has clearly turned into an ugly, deceitful battle, on the ground and in the media. Next week we will ask where things are now, in 2019, and put the Palestinian ‘cause’ in greater context.

Meanwhile, watchfulness, discernment and prayer remain essential weapons for Christians in the battle for truth.

Part 1 of 2. 

References

1 Ghannam, EF. Despite Israel’s threats of violence, Gaza protesters have peaceful dream. Mondweiss, 29 March 2018.

2 ‘Nakba’ means ‘catastrophe’, originally used by Arabs to refer to the 1920 partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. Informally used by groups of Palestinian Arabs to refer to their displacement during the establishment of Israel by 14 May 1948. Later adopted by the PLO, Nakba Day was inaugurated by Yasser Arafat in 1998.

3 Palinfo.com, 6 February 2018. Obtained from MEMRI.

4 Picture obtained from the official GRM Facebook page by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Originally posted as the GRM Facebook page profile picture on 22 February 2018 (the profile picture has since been modified slightly, but the original image can also be seen in other photos on social media, such as this one).

5 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip continue preparing a mass march to the Israeli border ('the great return march'), planned for Land Day, March 30, 2018. Meir Amit, 8 March 2018. Picture obtained from the official GRM Facebook page, February 28, 2018.

6 Gaza Friday Sermon: Our Blessed Land Is Being Trampled by the Accursed Descendants of Apes and Pigs - Scenes from Gaza "Return March". Sermon transcript, MEMRI, Clip no. 6500, 30 March 2018.

7 Gross, JA. IDF: Palestinians who breached fence planted explosives. Times of Israel, 8 April 2018.

8 Gaza Scholar Khaled Hany Morshid Calls to Brandish the Sword of Jihad, Fight the Jews - Scenes from Gaza "Return March". MEMRI, Clip no. 6537, 14 April 2018.

9 Twitter.com/imad_aql, May 13, 2018, reported via MEMRI.

10 Picture obtained from Facebook, 14 May 2018. Translation by MEMRI.

11 Senior Hamas Official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar on Gaza Protests: This Is Not Peaceful Resistance, It Is Supported by Our Weapons. MEMRI, Clip No. 6573, 13 May 2018.

12 Hamas Leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar: Our People Took Off Their Military Uniforms and Joined the Marches… MEMRI, Clip No. 6576, 16 May 2018.

13 Hamas Political Bureau Member Salah Al-Bardawil: 50 of the Martyrs Killed in Gaza were from Hamas, 12 Regular People. MEMRI transcript, Clip No. 6575, 16 May 2018.

14 Thousands of acres of forest land have been destroyed in 6 months of Gaza arson balloons. JTA, 10 October 2018.

15 Zikri, AB. We Flew a Drone Over the Fires Raging Around Gaza. This Is What We Saw. Haaretz, 26 June 2018.

16 Zitun, Y. WATCH: Hamas fakes injuries, uses children in Gaza border protests. Ynet News, 5 May 2018.

Trump vs Macron and the battle for all our futures.

These days, I am routinely and necessarily suspicious of the BBC. So when Auntie reports a major international speech given by the most powerful man in the world by poking fun at him, it makes me want to listen to the speech in full and see what I’ve missed!

The speech was given by President Donald Trump to the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The UNGA brings together in one room world leaders of vastly different political backgrounds, from 153 nations. Since a lot of politicking is done off-camera, the podium is the tip of the iceberg; a nonetheless vital indicator of a more extensive reality just below the surface.

Podium Wars

It is fascinating to watch Trump’s speeches and the reactions of other world leaders. Ever since his arrival on the world scene, things seem to have become more threatening and unstable – or more exciting and hopeful, depending on your perspective. He has certainly succeeded in exposing to the air an ideological war that has been raging in the West for decades.

As with ‘populist’ movements like Brexit, such an open challenge to the left-wing secular humanist orthodoxy is usually decried (by left-wing secular humanists) as divisive. But what else should be expected of any attempt to stand against the prevailing direction of Western politics?

And if Trump embodies one side of the ideological war, the other is embodied by French President Emmanuel Macron, whose UNGA speech was essentially a point-for-point rebuttal of Trump’s. This article looks at some of the key issues over which they tussle, putting them both into biblical perspective.

Polar Opposite Views

President Trump dedicated much of his speech to a solidly conservative defence of nationhood, vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy” and to reject “the ideology of globalism.”

His argument was that whilst supra-national organisations like the UN have “unlimited potential”, they cannot and should not replace the “beautiful constellation of nations”, since “Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered.”

If Trump embodies one side of the ideological war for the West, the other is embodied by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Meanwhile, President Macron took the podium to exalt the virtues of global government as the only way to solve mounting international crises and ensure prosperity for all. He argued that “nationalism always leads to defeat”, blaming it for two world wars, genocides and countless worsening global emergencies.

He then claimed that we are witnessing a “crisis of the Westphalian world order" (i.e. a world of individual sovereign states) and “this is a turning point” where we need “a new world order” based on “new rules” and “a re-forging of the global collective system”.

Trump addresses the 73rd session of the Assembly, 25 September 2018.While Macron waxed lyrical about international co-operation, Trump criticised the dangerous lack of accountability of global institutions (e.g. the ICC, the WTO). Declaring that they have “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy and no authority”, he then proclaimed:

America is governed by Americans…we believe in the majesty of freedom and the dignity of the individual. We believe in self-government and the rule of law. And we prize the culture that sustains our liberty - a culture built on strong families, deep faith, and fierce independence.

Macron denounced this thinking as ‘isolationism’. He argued that populist movements championing democracy are mere expressions of frustration from groups ‘left behind’ by the modern world. To combat this, he argued, what is needed is not insular nationalism, but more and better globalism.

These are just a few examples; I recommend comparing the full texts of both speeches (links below).

More Than Different Opinions

Importantly, Trump and Macron do not simply represent different opinions about how government should be done: they embody two diametrically opposed worldviews.

Underlying Trump’s defence of national sovereignty is a biblical valuation of individual dignity and freedom, as given by God. From this starting point, the role of government is to protect and encourage individuals, not least by investing in the structures (also God-given) that enable them to flourish, such as the family, the rule of law and the nation itself.

Underneath Macron’s ‘new world order’ is precisely the opposite: a firm belief in the pre-eminence of the universal rather than the individual. The role of government is then to impose freedom from the top down, not by protecting units like the family and the nation, but by subordinating them to a ‘universal’ moral and political system:

I believe in universal values…I think there should be unconditional protection of our values…Let us address the crises, let us work together…mindful of the principles guided by our history and the principle of universality and universalism.

Under Trump’s defence of national sovereignty is a biblical valuation of individual dignity and freedom, as given by God. Underneath Macron’s ‘new world order’ is precisely the opposite.

Digging even further down, underneath these different claims lie very different visions for humanity’s future, and very different beliefs about human nature and God.

Macron’s vision is the realisation of a world where poverty, disease and conflict are gone, climate change is reversed and prosperity is enjoyed by all. Appealing though all this sounds, it is grounded in a utopian fantasy: the creation of heaven on earth, without God, humanity dictating its own morals and working out its own salvation.¹ Both history and Bible prophecy testify to the terrible ends of such millennial dreams.

Trump’s world-view is not nearly so grandiose. He does not assume that a universal utopian vision is necessary, possible or desirable, but instead concerns himself with unleashing individual potential: enabling people to make the best of a fallen world, responsible for their own lives before God.

This does not preclude impulses to international co-operation; it just does not prescribe them as the way to humanity’s ultimate self-realisation.

The Spiritual Dimension

These two men and their two speeches remind me that ultimately there are really only two worldviews, or two directions in which to move: to pay respect to the God of the Bible and his created order, or to write God out of the picture, revising the world accordingly.² Whichever side wins out will change the lives of millions, even billions of people.

The biblical context of all this, of course, is the spiritual battle spoken of in Ephesians 6:10-19. This invisible battle is for the hearts, minds and eternal destinations of all mankind. It is therefore fundamentally a battle for the freedom of the Gospel to be proclaimed, heard and accepted. Satan’s strategy is to deceive with counterfeit offers of salvation and freedom, working meanwhile to close down opportunities for the truth to be heard.

One day, Macron’s vision of a ‘new world order’ will be realised, temporarily (Rev 13), though Satan’s attempts to achieve this through history have so far been allayed. By God’s grace, until the appointed time the Holy Spirit is acting as a restraint, safe-guarding our freedom to proclaim the Good News:

For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendour of his coming. (2 Thess 2:7; also 2 Pet 3:9)

In these two men, and in these two speeches, we are reminded that ultimately there really are only two worldviews.

For Believers

Why is it important to understand the battle raging between our political masters, especially if God ultimately scoffs at their posturing and plotting (Ps 2)? It’s important because it should jolt us out of complacency and galvanise us:

• To make bold use of our Gospel freedoms while we still have them,
  
• To take care that we are not deceived into aligning ourselves with ideologies behind which lie the ‘powers of this world’s darkness’,
  
• To be deliberate in applying God’s truth to our political thinking and acting, and
  
• To pray with understanding, listening to the heart of God and (if so called) yielding ourselves to the vital ministry of intercession.
  

It is a mistake to poke fun at Trump instead of listening to what he has to say. This is a debate – nay, a war – about human nature and purpose, and ultimately about God. Ephesians 6 makes no provision for Christians sitting on the side-lines: it is a call to arms.

Listen to/read the full speeches:

• President Trump: text / video

• President Macron: text / video (quotes taken from the latter)

Notes

1 In this schema, the major evil is not sin, but the freedom which has allowed inequalities to flourish and resources to be abused. The only solution, therefore, is the submission of freedom to the ‘greater’ goals of equality and unity. The biggest potential threats to this are sovereign nation-states or movements of people that might use their independence to deviate from this agenda.

2 Nowhere do these worldviews clash more voraciously than on Israel, although I have not included this example here. Israel will always be at the crux of the global battle for truth and freedom, because she stands for the inevitable fulfilment of God’s covenant purposes and the soon return of Messiah.

Our second excerpt from Sandra Teplinsky's ‘Why Still Care About Israel?’

Palestinian Injustice

A sad reality is that the War of Independence was not fought without collateral damage to both Palestinian and Jewish civilians. For the sake of perspective, no war can be fought without collateral damage - and in this instance, there would not have been a war if the Arabs had not insisted on starting one. Nevertheless, some Arab families and villages were wrongly expelled or inexcusably overrun by Jewish soldiers.^q In at least one such raid at Deir Yassin, genuinely innocent victims were massacred.³¹ Upon learning of the sordid event, Israel denounced it and sought to compensate the victims.^r

The Palestinian narrative claims that since 1948, Israel has stolen or destroyed over four hundred Arab villages. This figure, based on a recently created map of dubious veracity, cannot be objectively verified. Israeli historians point out that many Arab families who were forced to leave their homes did not actually own the lands or homes they left. Some were long-term renters - for generations - of lands sold legally, but without their knowledge, to the Jews.^s

Moreover - and without diminishing the loss some Arabs have suffered - a large Palestinian state (Jordan) existed just across the border. Those who might be displaced were expected to seek refuge there, just as 800,000 Jewish refugees were forced to leave their homes and wealth behind and relocate to Israel.^t (More on this momentarily.)

No war can be fought without collateral damage - and in 1948, there would not have been a war if the Arabs had not insisted on starting one.

Lacking objective documentation of their plight, Palestinians have amassed global sympathies through a narrative that inverts history.^u Many share tragic personal tales - that prove either unverifiable or outrageously embellished.^v Their stories tend either to romanticize Arab tribal-village life or misrepresent it as a bustling society.^w Sadly, some of these accounts are presented by Christians as honest-to-God facts. Their pitiable tales tug at the heartstrings of any hearer. It’s their personal story, we reason. How can it not be true - and how can we not be deeply moved? Emotions are stirred, then inflamed - against Israel. Gradually, hearts are hardened against the Jewish people and what God is doing with them today.

Jesus loves and died for the Palestinian people: He does not want us to disparage them. We must compassionately acknowledge their suffering and seek a right response to it. But even genuine suffering must be viewed in context to rightly ascertain truth and transform realities justly.

Palestinian - and Jewish - Refugees

Palestinians were not the only refugees to result from the War of Independence. According to official UN figures, over 800,000 Jewish refugees were forced to flee homes and lands in North Africa and the Middle East where they had lived for generations.³² Unlike some Palestinians, they were in no sense “voluntary refugees”. Jews were expelled, stripped of citizenship or both in retaliation for Israel’s declaration of statehood. Arab nations have persistently refused to compensate these refugees for their confiscated properties, valued today at billions of dollars.³³

Meanwhile, during the War of Independence, unincorporated areas proposed by the Partition Plan for a second Palestinian Arab state were illegally annexed and occupied - not by Israel but by Jordan and Egypt. Jordan seized Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem, while Egypt staked claim to Gaza.

Now, the Arabs’ publicly stated goal for the war had been to liberate Palestine. But neither Jordan nor Egypt ever gave the territories they annexed back to the Palestinians to liberate them. Instead, the latter were compelled - by their own brethren - to stay put indefinitely in refugee camp limbo.^x Why? you may ask. They would not talk about it; let me explain.

Lacking objective documentation of their plight, Palestinians have amassed global sympathies through a narrative that inverts history.

Israel began offering, as early as 1949, to negotiate for the refugees’ return - and full repatriation - back into the Jewish state. But no Arab leader was willing to negotiate with the Jews. Transacting with Israel, they said, would involve an implicit recognition of her existence. This they had vowed never to do.³⁴ Further, by refusing either to negotiate for the refugees’ return or to absorb them themselves, they could continue the war against Israel in the political realm.^y This they had vowed never to cease doing.

Children in Jabalia refugee camp, Gaza. See Photo Credits.In 1949 the UN established a relief fund (United Nations Relief and Works Agency or UNRWA) to provide for the refugees’ basic needs. Soon thereafter, UNRWA acceded to Arab demands to grant refugee status - for the first time in history - not only to those who fled but to their descendants, indefinitely. This redefinition of “refugee” guaranteed the Palestinian population would dramatically increase over time.³⁵ By 2013, of an estimated Palestinian population of five million, only 30,000 - or approximately half of 1 percent - actually ever left a home in Israel.³⁶

Meanwhile, many billions of dollars have been given to Palestinians by Israel and other nations to provide for their “basic needs”.^z At this writing, UNRWA remains the largest employer in the West Bank, with thousands of Palestinians on its payroll and, according to some, padding the personal fortunes of Palestinian leaders.³⁷

Former UNRWA director Ralph Galloway concluded early on:

The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.³⁸

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu similarly noted:

The consistent refusal of Arab leaders to solve this problem is particularly tragic because it would have been so easy to do…That the fifty million Arabs In 1948 could not absorb 650,000 Arab refugees - and have not finished the job even after half a century, and even after the fantastic multiplication of their oil wealth - is an indication of [how] the Arabs have manipulated the refugee issue to create reasons for world censure of Israel.³⁹

Of the situation an Arab American journalist comments:

What are the real roots of this [Palestiman-Israeli] conflict?...That Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy?...These two demands are nothing more than strategic deceptions. propaganda ploys. They are nothing more than phony excuses and rationalizations for the terrorism and murdering of Jews. The real goal of those making these demands is the destruction of the State of Israel.⁴⁰

Israel began offering, as early as 1949, to negotiate for the refugees’ return - and full repatriation - back into the Jewish state. But no Arab leader was willing to negotiate.

Palestinian Statehood and the Phased Plan

In 1964, Yasser Arafat assumed leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a terror group with the stated purpose to liberate all of Palestine. It was not, however, created to liberate the West Bank and Gaza; this was never the “Palestine” to which it referred. Recall that in 1964, Gaza still belonged to Egypt and the West Bank was governed by Jordan. Since 1964 the Palestinian agenda has been to liberate a Palestine that includes, by definition, every square inch of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River - that is, all of Israel.^{41 aa}

Shortly after the PLO published its goals, Israel fought for her life in the Six Day War of 1967. To the world’s surprise, she defensively acquired Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan. Then, in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched another unprovoked attack, the Yom Kippur War. Again Israel prevailed. As a result of these mounting Arab defeats, the PLO announced its “Phased Plan” the following year. The Phased Plan has never been revoked and still represents Islamist/Arab/Palestinian strategy today.

The Phased Plan refers to the slightly revised goal of liberating Palestine not all at once, but in stages. Phase One is the establishment of an independent, combatant national authority consisting of Gaza and the West Bank. This was to a large degree accomplished by developing the PLO into the PA and by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Phase Two is the reconfiguration of Gaza and the West Bank into launching pads for provoking an all-out regional war, in which Israel is wiped off the map.⁴²

This is to be accomplished by military operations, lawfare diplomacy, cyberattack or any combination thereof.

On the Occupation

When Israel pushed back her attackers in the Six Day War and gained Gaza and the West Bank, she acquired land that had been originally allotted to her in 1920. By 1967, however, the areas were inhabited by over a million Jew-hating Palestinians and angry insurgents.⁴³ Israel had no desire to “rule over” them.⁴⁴

The Six Day War ended with UN Security Council Resolution 242, a truce that purposefully did not define borders. Resolution 242 authorized Israel to remain in possession of newly acquired territories until peace was established and final borders secured. It was meticulously and explicitly worded so that Israel would not be forced to withdraw from all the newly acquired territories, back to the boundary lines from which she had just been attacked.⁴⁵

When Israel pushed back her attackers in the Six Day War and gained Gaza and the West Bank, she acquired land that had been originally allotted to her in 1920.

Those boundaries, the 1949 armistice lines ending the War of Independence, were never meant to be permanent. Nor were they intended to substitute for negotiations to determine final borders. In less than twenty years, the lines had proved indefensible,^{46 bb} leaving the middle and most populous section of the country only nine miles wide. With Palestinians having shown themselves unwilling or unable to make peace, some Israeli leaders have termed the 1949 lines “Auschwitz Borders”, referring to a notorious Nazi death camp. Nevertheless, by 2011 the international community would euphemistically call them “pre-1967 borders” and urge Israel to retreat to them - with no enforceable guarantee of peace in return.

After the Six Day War, Egypt and Jordan eventually signed peace treaties with Israel. These nations refused, however, to take back either Gaza or the West Bank. Reclaiming these territories would have betrayed the pan-Arab plan, notoriously reaffirmed after the war,⁴⁷ to leave in place a local population to help destroy Israel. As a result, Gaza and the West Bank remained in a state of perpetual war with Israel, ruled by the increasingly militant PLO. That being the case, Israel was authorized by international law to administratively govern the territories, with quasi-military powers of enforcement, until peace could be achieved. The administration of law and order in a hostile, enemy population in such circumstances is called an occupation.

Some Israelis say, however, that they have not occupied any of these areas because the land rightfully belongs to them under customary international law. Customary international law refers to the body of international law and policy that Western nations have traditionally practiced and followed.

In either case, Israel’s quasi-military administration known as the “occupation” is not illegal. The term “illegal occupation” is a pejorative mischaracterization, intended to conjure up images of oppression and abuse. Admittedly, Israel has not always acted fairly or justly during the difficult course of governing people dedicated to her demise. But to brand her lawful jurisdiction “illegal” or “oppressive” obscures the reality that if Palestinians sincerely accepted Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, the war and the occupation would be history. Allow me to explain.

Peace Negotiations

In 1993, the PLO morphed into the Palestinian Authority under an agreement called the Oslo Accords. At that time Palestinians gained the right to negotiate peace with Israel for themselves.^cc Sadly, rather than pursue a peaceful coexistence alongside Israel, history records how they proliferated terror instead.

Nevertheless, in 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians full sovereignty over 95 percent of the disputed territories, including East Jerusalem, with secured geographic contiguity. There was virtually nothing left for the Jews to give away. But the Palestinians said no. Offering no counterproposal to the offer, they literally walked out on negotiations⁴⁸ and immediately launched a violent intifada (“uprising”) of deadly terror lasting several years.^dd US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who was present, said the Palestinians’ main objection was the insertion of one critical clause in the agreement: “This is the end of the conflict."^{49 ee} The Palestinians could not end the conflict with anything less than ending Israel.^ff

In 1993, the Palestinians gained the right to negotiate peace with Israel for themselves – but rather than pursue this, they proliferated terror instead.

Yasser Arafat, who signed the Oslo Accords and walked out on the offer of a sovereign state, said (in Arabic): “I do not consider the [Oslo] agreement any more than the agreement which was signed by our prophet Muhammad and the Qurayish.”⁵⁰ Arafat referred to an agreement that established the right, called hudna, for Muslims to fake peace when they are weak so they can wait for better timing to fight when they are strong.^gg Thus an Arab saying goes like this: “When your enemy is strong, kiss his hand and pray that it will be broken one day.”⁵¹

Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres signs the Oslo Accords outside the White House, alongside PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. See Photo Credits.Faisal Husseini, a moderate Palestinian leader, compared the whole peace process to a proverbial “Trojan horse”.⁵² From the Arab perspective, it had been designed to fool Israel into letting the Palestinians arm themselves in order to destroy it. Said Husseini, “If you are asking me as a pan-Arab nationalist what are the Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy, I will immediately reply, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”⁵³

Perhaps that would explain why, in 2008, when Israel offered Palestinians 93 percent of the territory they desired - including 98 percent of the West Bank - they again said no.⁵⁴ And why, in 2009, PA leaders said they would resume negotiations on the pre-condition that Israel stop all settlement construction - but still refused to talk when Israel complied with their demand. After that, with one perceived betrayal following another, Israelis were not so willing to believe Palestinians were sincere about peace.^hh

In 2011, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tried to restart peace talks and pleaded at the UN with PA President Abbas to meet face-to-face, without preconditions. Abbas refused, demanding that Israel first agree to an expanded list of preconditions.ⁱⁱ Under the Oslo Accords and other agreements, however, these preconditions were in fact supposed to be the subject of the negotiations. By agreeing to all the preconditions first, there would be very little left to negotiate. So Netanyahu replied with one precondition of his own. He demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. If the PA would agree to the one precondition, Israel would agree to their whole list of them. But the Palestinians refused.^jj

In 2012, Palestinians sidestepped negotiations, and thus breached the Oslo Accords, by seeking to forge a path for statehood in the UN. At the same time, they launched a war from Gaza and a terror wave in the West Bank. In 2013, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon commented on the situation:

This is our history: Every time a proposal was raised to partition the land, the other side started a war. Every time we expressed willingness to give up territory, terror rose to new heights.⁵⁵

In 2012, Palestinians sidestepped negotiations, breaching the Oslo Accords, by seeking to forge a path for statehood in the UN.

Palestinians often say they resort to terror because Israeli proposals do not offer them a universal “right of return”. Israelis reply this is because Palestinians are unwilling to limit the “right” to refugees who personally left Israel; they insist on extending it to every Palestinian in Gaza, the West Bank or anywhere else in the world. Therefore, when Israel has expressed willingness to give them land, Palestinians have sometimes agreed to recognize a country named Israel - but never as a Jewish state.^kk The difference is critical. If Palestinians acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, they relinquish a strategy for turning it into a Palestinian/Islamist one by flooding it with millions of Arabs “returning” there.^ll

The right of return has remained, at this writing, uncompromisable - even though “homeland” is only a few miles away, and even though Palestinians would finally be getting a second sovereign state. From Israel’s perspective, granting several million Muslims, many of whom are murderously militant, permission to immigrate and repopulate the country is tantamount to committing national suicide.

Israeli Settlements

In 2012, the PA began claiming that Israeli settlements were the main reason for the failure of the peace process. In fact, settlements represent only 1.6 percent of the disputed territories,⁵⁶ and 70 percent of settlers live in suburbs adjacent to major Israeli cities, not deep inside the West Bank.⁵⁷ Settlements do not disrupt Palestinian geographic contiguity. Despite public opinion to the contrary, settlements officially authorized by the Israeli government are not illegal under standards of customary international law.^mm To be sure, settlements have been built on lands whose ownership is disputed. But in this dispute, Israel actually possesses the best claim to lawful - if not politically feasible or practical - ownership.ⁿⁿ

Recall that when Israel acquired the West Bank, no state or political entity held legal title to it. The last rightful owner of the land had been Israel, and historically, a Jewish presence has been maintained in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. After World War I, Britain obtained the land and, through international agreements, returned recognized legal title to the Jews. When the UN offered the land to Palestinian Arabs in 1947, it wrongfully tried to take that title away. But the Palestinians rejected the offer, thereby rendering it null and void.

Years later, Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, but Israel defensively - and therefore, legally - acquired it from Jordan in the Six Day War. Under international law, the land has been technically “disputed” since 1967.^oo In the future, international bodies may decide to rule on the legality of the territories and settlements built on them. Given the nations’ collective stance toward Israel, it would likely take an act of God for a ruling in her favor to result. Which of course we cannot rule out.

In this dispute, Israel actually possesses the best claim to lawful - if not politically feasible or practical – ownership of the ‘disputed’ territories.

Meanwhile, Israel’s settlement policies are not necessarily perfect. Growing numbers of extremist settlers (and Palestinians) have turned violent, and the violence must be stopped. Some Israelis have tried to stake claim to biblical lands by erecting self-declared, unauthorized outposts. Usually these are dismantled by Israel within a short time. Jewish settlement construction has resulted in genuine hardship for some Bedouin and other Arabs, not always handled properly by Israeli courts.^pp But these proportionately few unfair cases do not make all the settlements illegal. Nor do they provide a reason to suspend peace negotiations, if the parties sincerely desire peace.

Future Palestine

Repeatedly, Israel has demonstrated her willingness and even desire to accept Palestine as a new sovereign state. But as this book goes to print, Palestinians still insist (in Arabic) their state must stretch from the “river to the sea” and encompass all of Israel.⁵⁸ Surveys consistently reveal that a solid majority of Israelis would agree to live alongside a peaceful Palestinian state. (The operative word is peaceful.) But similar surveys consistently show the majority of Palestinians say they would never accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state.^qq In 2011, 66 percent of West Bank Palestinians said that while they would accept a two-state solution as a “first step”, they wanted to eventually replace Israel with a single Palestinian state.⁵⁹ In 2012, 88 percent of all Palestinians preferred a strategy of terror, or another intifada, over diplomacy to achieve it.⁶⁰ In 2013, similar polls yielded similar results.⁶¹

As you can see, the root of the Palestinian plight is well hidden beneath the surface tension exposed to public view. Deep-seated realities that will not change unless faced forthrightly are disguised and distorted. I do not minimize the genuine suffering, frustration and injustice that affects some Palestinians. But, fundamentally, these conditions are not the cause of Arab and Islamist enmity toward Israel; they are the result of it. Moreover, injustices have repeatedly come about at the hands of Arab, not Israeli, leaders betraying their own people. That the world faults Israel - and threatens her survival - for a Palestinian plight that is Islamist/Arab generated, is highly unjust.

God wants transformational justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. But justice must be pursued and attained His way - according to righteousness based on truth - however His enemies try to obscure it. He wants us to “test and approve what [his] Will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2) as He restores His ancient covenant people. Toward them we must “not be arrogant, but tremble" (Romans 11:20).

About the author: Sandra Teplinsky is a Messianic Jew who lives in Jerusalem and teaches about Israel. With her husband, Sandra runs a ministry called Light of Zion. Find out more about the book 'Why Still Care About Israel?' on its website.

References

Letters q-qq can be found on this page.

31 Bard, “The Refugees”, Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013; Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 122

32 Auguste Lindt, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “Report of the UNREF Executive Committee, Fourth Session”, Geneva, January 29 to February 4, 1957; Dr. E. Jahn, Office of the UN High Commissioner, “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Document No.7/2/3," Libya, July 6, 1967, as cited in Alan Baker, ed., Israel's Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and World Jewish Congress, 2011), 50.

33 “Refugees Forever? Issues in the Palestinian-lsraeli Conflict," International Jerusalem Post, February 21, 2003, special supplement; Bard, “The Refugees."

34 Terence Prittie. “Middle East Refugees,” in Michael Curtis, Joseph Neyer, Chaim Waxman, and Allen Pollack, ed., The Palestinians: People, History, Politics (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1975), 66—67.

35 Daniel Pipes, “Peculiar Proliferation of Palestinian Refugees,” Washington Times, February 20, 2012.

36 Donna Cassata, “Defining a Palestinian Refugee,” Associated Press. May 31, 2012.

37 Jonathan Shanzer. “Chronic Kleptocracy: Corruption within the Palestinian Political Establishment,” Hearing before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressional Testimony, July 10, 2012.

38 As cited by Prittie, “Middle East Refugees," 71, emphasis mine.

39 Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, 155.

40 Joseph Farah, speech given at Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania, July 3, 2003.

41 See for example Palestinian Media Watch, “PA Depicts a World Without Israel,” 2011; “Mashaal: We Will Never Give Up Any of Palestine,” International Jerusalem Post, December 14-20, 2011.

42 “Political Plan of the PLO Council," June 8, 1974.

43 Jewish Virtual Library, “Demography of Palestine & Israel, the West Bank & Gaza."

44 See for example Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (New York. Ballantine Books, 2002), 306-27.

45 Jewish Virtual Library, “The Meaning of Resolution 142"; Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West and the Future of the Holy City (Washington D.C.: Regnery, Inc, 2007), 172-74; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Disputed Territories-Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” February 1, 2003.

46 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Israel's Critical Security Requirements for Defensible Borders (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs).

47 The Arabs' Khartoun Resolutions of 1967 solidified the notorious “Three No’s”: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Jewish Virtual Library, “The Khartoun Resolutions.”

48 Benny Morris, “Camp David and After: An Exchange (Interview with Ehud Barak),” New York Review of Books 49, no. 10, June 13, 2002.

49 Ambassador Dennis Ross, in a Fox News interview, as reported by David Kupelian, “The Real Reason Arafat Rejected a Palestinian State,” Whistleblower 12, no. 3 (March 2003): 7.

50 Speech by Arafat in Johannesburg, May 10, 1994 (while Oslo was in effect), as cited in Daniel Pipes, “Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad in Diplomacy,” Middle East Quarterly, September 1999.

51 Kupelian, “The Real Reason,” 8-9; Pipes, “Lessons.”

52 “Faysal al-Husseni in His Last Interview,” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 236, July 6, 2001.

53 lbid.

54 Reuters and Aluf Benn, “PA Rejects Olmert‘s Offer,” Haaretz, August 12, 2008.

55 Mazal Mualem, “New Defense Minister No Threat to Netanyahu’s Policies,” Al-Monitor, March 13, 2013.

56 See Michelle Whiteman, “To the Media, Building Settlements in Israel’s a Crime,” Huffington Post, December 26, 2012; and Mitchell G. Bard, “The Settlements,” Myths and Facts Online, Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013.

57 Bard, “The Settlements.”

58 “Jerusalem-on-the-Line,” Jerusalem News Network, Prayer Letter, April 3, 2013, quoting Palestinian Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal’s speech in Arabic at a rally in Gaza City, March 30, 2013.

59 United Press International, “Poll: Arabs Reject Two-State Solution," July 26, 2011.

60 Elhanan Miller,“88 Percent of Palestinians Believe Armed Struggle Is the Best Way," Times of Israel, December 16, 2012.

61 Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, “Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No. 47," press release, April 1, 2013.

An excerpt from Sandra Teplinsky’s book ‘Why Still Care About Israel’. Part I of II.

Last week on Prophecy Today UK we reviewed ‘Why Still Care About Israel’ as part of our ongoing coverage of Israel’s 70^th anniversary. This week, we are pleased to bring you the first of a two-part excerpt from this book (taken from chapter 10), focusing particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please see the base of the page for more information about the author. Reprinted with permission.

 Israeli Statehood and the Arab/Palestinian Plight

“Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Romans 12:2

A true story opens on May 14, 1948, as the Jewish people prepare to declare a state. The air is electric. After two thousand years of exile, the sons and daughters of Jacob have come home. High-pitched excitement circles the globe.

That morning, Israel's founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, pores over maps showing the array of Arab armies poised to attack. The Jews are outnumbered 100 to 1.¹ “I feel like a mourner at a wedding," he writes in his diary.²

In a few hours Ben-Gurion will deliver Israel’s Declaration of Independence. He scribbles down notes for his speech on the only writing material at hand - sheets of toilet paper.^a

At exactly 4:00pm, he steps to the podium in an overcrowded hall in Tel Aviv, before a hushed audience. This is the moment for which millions of Jews have lived and died. As Ben-Gurion reads the Israeli Declaration of Independence, those present cling to his every word. He speaks of Bible history and the Jews’ undying hope to return to their ancestral home. Then with prophetic clarity Ben-Gurion decrees: “By virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people…we hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, to be called the State of Israel…for the fulfillment of the dream of generations—the redemption of Israel.”

At once, cheers and tears resound. Golda Meir, who would later serve as prime minister, cannot stop crying. Her sobs, she explains, are for the many who should have been there, but are no more.³ According to the nation’s chief rabbi, “The dawn of redemption has broken.”⁴

As the Jewish people prepare to declare a state, the air is electric. After two thousand years of exile, the sons and daughters of Jacob have come home. High-pitched excitement circles the globe.

Euphoria erupts in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where traffic stops as streets swell with singing and dancing. But the party is soon interrupted. Sirens wail to warn of Egyptian bombers overhead. Joining them are the armies of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, together with militants from throughout the Arab world. All have a common goal: to annihilate the Jewish state in Allah’s name.⁵ The War of Independence has begun. Happy birthday, Israel.

Since 1948, tomes have been written on the history of Israel’s restoration, and the Islamist/Arab/Palestinian resistance against it. Time and space permit us to summarise only basic facts (for more detail, please refer to the notes at www.whystillcareaboutisrael.com). I think you will discover a surprising perspective on today’s conflict emerges when you consider the context from which it arose. You will see that Israel is not so much in a fight for land as for her life - and that changes everything.

Palestinian History: The Back Story

In the first century AD, Israel was renamed Palestine by the Romans who conquered her. This was done in derisive remembrance of the Jews’ former - and extinct - enemy, the Philistines. The Philistines had by then already died out, so despite the similarity in name, they are not related to the Palestinians of today.^b Collectively, Palestinians have no traceable ancient tie to the land of Israel and never identified as a self-governing people group. Like other Arabs in the Middle East, most of their ancestors dwelt as scattered family tribes on lands they often did not personally own. Generally, they coexisted alongside Jews who had, in small numbers, lived in Palestine since biblical times on inherited or legally purchased land.⁶ But periodically, Islamic terror would erupt⁷ and jihadi expropriation of Jewish real estate took place.⁸

From the 1500s up until World War I, the entire Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, a type of Muslim caliphate. No autonomous Arab state was on the map; most Arabs belonged to nomadic tribes wandering all over the Middle East.^c At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jews also lived in the region under Ottoman rule. According to a census taken in 1882, approximately 25,000 of them lived in Palestine, along with 260,000 Arabs.⁹ As tourists and pilgrims testified, Palestine was by then mostly desolate and depopulated,¹⁰ a far cry from the land of milk and honey it had once been for millions of Jews.

Israel is not so much in a fight for land as for her life - and that changes everything.

By the early 1900s, Palestinian Arab identity was said to be extremely mixed.¹¹ Persons counted as indigenous Palestinian Arabs included ethnic Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Tartars and others.¹² An official British document published in 1920 stated the majority of people living in Palestine were not indigenous Arabs but only Arabic-speaking.¹³

When Zionist pioneers began arriving in the early twentieth century, the number of Arabs immigrating to Palestine also sharply increased. With Jews from the West came new job opportunities, vastly improved medical care and a higher standard of living, all of which attracted their tribal neighbors.¹⁴ Once inside Israel, most Arab immigrants continued living as bedouin, built simple villages or served for decades as tenants on farmlands owned by others. Later, countless more poured in from surrounding countries - not to carry on normal lives but to fight the formation of a Jewish state.¹⁵ Together with the small indigenous Arab population, these individuals and their descendants comprise the Palestinian people of today.

Palestinians are not, as some have rather unkindly said, “an invented people". They are flesh-and-blood human beings created in God’s image, with inherent dignity and worth. Though most of their ancestors came from across the Middle East and even beyond, they did form an identifiable collective by the mid-twentieth century. Palestinians are not the first people group formed by the force of history. They are, however, the only modern group whose creation and self-definition, as one Palestinian journalist writes,¹⁶ rests largely on the planned elimination of another, namely Israel - or as they prefer to call her, “the Zionist entity."

Zionism and the Reestablishment of a Jewish State

Zionism is defined, in a broad secular sense, as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. The Zionist movement contends that the Jewish nation, like every other indigenous people, is entitled to live autonomously in its ancestral homeland. As such, Zionism cannot be viewed as something separate from the Jewish people and nation-state. To be anti-Zionist is akin to being anti-Israel and, to a degree, anti-Jewish.

Zionism is not and has never been entirely secular; a strong religious element has always underlain it.^d Officially launched in 1896, modern-day Zionism involves the return of the Jewish people to their God-given ancestral homeland.^e The name of the movement derives from the Bible, where Zion is used over 150 times. “You will arise and have compassion on Zion; for it is time to show favour to her; the appointed time has come…For the LORD will rebuild Zion and appear in his glory” (Psalm 102:13, 16). Zionism precipitates His Kingdom glory.

Palestinians are not the first people group formed by the force of history. They are, however, the only modern group whose creation and self-definition rests largely on the planned elimination of another, namely Israel.

In rebuilding Zion, Sovereign God has worked through nations and human beings. The modern story starts with World War I, when the Ottoman Turks aligned with Axis nations, and collectively they lost the war. As a result, the Allies dismantled the Ottoman Empire and created Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq for the Arabs and Persians to inhabit.^f In an international agreement known as the San Remo Resolution of 1920, they set Palestine aside for the Jews.^g Great Britain was made responsible for implementing the resolution by unanimous vote of the League of Nations, predecessor organisation to the UN. The League of Nations directive, called the Mandate for Palestine, reserved explicitly for the Jews not just present-day Israel, but all of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jordan.¹⁷

The Mandate for Palestine was scarcely issued when Palestinian Arabs began rioting and conducting terror operations in protest of it. The deadly terror had nothing to do with occupation, settlements or allegedly disproportionate military force. From the beginning, Islamic terror had everything to do with opposing the existence of a Jewish state.

In an effort to appease Palestinian Arabs - and although international law forbade such an action^h - Great Britain unilaterally took back 78 percent of the land allotted to the Jews. She then gave it to Palestinian Arabs—specifically to create a Palestinian state. Today that state is known as Jordan. Palestinian Arabs were expected to move to Jordan, and any Jews living in Jordan would relocate to the 22 percent of land remaining from the San Remo and Mandatory allotments. A smaller section of land in the Golan Heights, originally designated for the Jews, was also given away by Britain to Syria. But appeasement did not work - which we would do well to remember. Those who forget history, it is said, are doomed to repeat it. The acts we engage in for appeasement today, Britain’s Winston Churchill presciently forewarned, we will have to remedy at far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.¹⁸

Not surprisingly, after Jordan was established, Palestinian rioting and terror killings of Jews persisted.ⁱ An exasperated Great Britain finally turned the political foray over to the UN (when the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II, the UN was formed to replace it). The UN’s charter required that it adopt all laws and resolutions passed by the League of Nations. So when it inherited the Mandate for Palestine, the UN became responsible for creating a Jewish state.

As you can see, plans for the reestablishment of Israel were underway well before the onset of World War II. Israel’s right to exist by international law is not fundamentally based on the Nazi Holocaust, as compelling a cause as that is from a humanitarian point of view. Certainly, the Holocaust demonstrated the need for a Jewish state to protect Jewish lives. But if we believe Israel’s right to exist is rooted in a compassionate response to the Holocaust, when that compassion wears off, so will our belief that Israel has a right to exist. Israel’s fundamental right to exist under international law rests on the recognition of the Jews’ ancestral, sovereign control over identifiable land that, since their forced removal from it, remained sparsely occupied and mostly undeveloped.

Israel’s right to exist by international law is not fundamentally based on the Nazi Holocaust, as compelling a cause as that is from a humanitarian point of view.

Notwithstanding Israel’s historical and legal right to the land, and dismissing international commitments to the Jews, the UN continued with a policy of Arab appeasement. In 1947, it partitioned the remaining 22 percent of the original Mandate for a Jewish homeland into two proposed states: one for Jews and yet another, second state for Palestinian Arabs. The Partition Plan, also called UN Resolution 181, recognized the Jews’ right to sovereign control over a sliver of space amounting to a mere 10 percent of the original British Mandate. It offered the Arabs who lived within Mandate territory a state - in addition to Jordan - consisting of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Zionist pioneers felt it best to accept the UN’s offer. Ten percent of the Promised Land after nearly two thousand years was better than zero. Moreover, they had no political clout or practical means with which to resist whatever the world community told them to do. The Arabs, however, thoroughly rejected the Partition Plan, which legally voided the offer to them. Ninety percent of the land, they insisted, was not enough. They wanted it all - an empire spanning the entire Middle East, leaving no place on earth for the Jews. They mobilised for a war against Israel they felt certain they would win. The world wondered, much as it does today. Will Israel survive?

Israel's Rebirth—Into War

Israel did not want the War of Independence to occur and tried extremely hard to prevent it.¹⁹ When her every effort toward peace was rebuffed, Ben-Gurion extended a final appeal to the Arabs in his Declaration of Independence speech:

We yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions…We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to co-operate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all.²⁰

The same invitation had been offered daily for weeks.^j British Mandate authorities who were stationed on the ground testified: “Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives…and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe.”²¹ Most, however, chose to flee, creating a local refugee crisis that would upend history. A Palestinian priest who watched the events unfold stated, “[The Arabs] fled in spite of the fact the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel.”²²

Arab-Nazi Alliance

Why did so many Palestinians run from their homes and livelihoods? An overlooked historical fact is perhaps one of the most pivotal and still fuels the conflict today. An unshakeable Islamic/Arab-Nazi alliance predated World War II, and as a result of it, many Arabs vehemently despised and feared the Jews.

Early in his career, Hitler formed a pact with Jerusalem’s grand mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The notoriously anti-Semitic mufti held religious and political sway over Muslims throughout Palestine and the larger Middle East. He and Hitler schemed together to annihilate the Jewish people worldwide. The fuehrer would focus on Europe and the extraordinarily influential mufti would target Palestine’s growing Jewish population.²³

An unshakeable Islamic/Arab-Nazi alliance predated World War II, and as a result of it, many Arabs vehemently despised and feared the Jews.

Building on fundamental Islam’s anti-Jewish ideology, Husseini mobilized an Arab militia, which served as a formal Nazi brigade. Supplied with German weaponry, the brigade murdered Palestinian Jews in acts of heinous terror throughout World War II.²⁴ To keep the violence going, Husseini saturated the Middle East with lies about the Zionists via propaganda broadcasts radioed in from Berlin.^k So after the Holocaust ended in Europe, he and other Arab leaders hoped to immediately start another.

Creating a Refugee Crisis

When, to their profound dismay, Israel declared statehood, Palestinian Arabs panicked. An estimated 600,000 to 700,000 fled.^{25 l} Approximately 150,000 to 160,000 chose to remain inside the Jewish state.²⁶ Today, they and their descendants enjoy full democratic rights of Israeli citizenship, including a standard of living much higher than that of their brethren anywhere else in North Africa or the Middle East.

Under the influence of Muslim/Nazi anti-Semitism, the majority of Arabs who left their homes did so because their leaders told them to. Evacuations were ordered to make way for approaching armies that would quickly destroy the Jewish state.^m Arab leaders boasted that lsrael would be “driven into the [Mediterranean] sea" within a few days. Accordingly, the Higher Arab Executive gave Palestinians a choice: Quit and run, or accept Jewish protection and be regarded as a renegade in the Arab world that would imminently take over. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem ordered its constituency out of their homes, adding “Any opposition to this order…is an obstacle to the holy war…and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.”²⁷

The Arab Legion and Arab Liberation Army directed whole-sale civilian flight form entire villages. Leaders like Iraqi prime minister Nuri Said warned, “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”²⁸ To ensure compliance, some leaders planted rumours of Israeli terror operations and non-existent atrocities.^{29 n} Shortly after the war – which to their deep humiliation they did not win – Arab leaders freely admitted to having created the refugee crisis.^o Mahmoud Abbas,^p who would later serve as president of the PA, confessed:

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.³⁰

Next week: Part II concludes the chapter, looking in more depth at the refugee crisis (including claims of Israeli atrocities) and the attempts at peace settlements since.

About the author: Sandra Teplinsky is a Messianic Jew who lives in Jerusalem and teaches about Israel. With her husband, Sandra runs a ministry called Light of Zion. Find out more about the book 'Why Still Care About Israel?' on its website.

References

Letters a-p refer to notes on this page.

1 The Peace Encyclopedia: Palestine, 2002.

2 Charly Wegman, “Friday May 14, 1948: Israel’s Debut”, Agence France Presse-English, 1998; Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 178-79.

3 Golda Meir, My Life (London: Futura Publications, 1989), 186.

4 Mark Lacqueur, “The Struggle for a Jewish State,” The Palestine-Israel Journal.

5 Palestine Post [predecessor to the Jerusalem Post], May 16, 1948.

6 Jewish Virtual Library, “Demography of Palestine & Israel, the West Bank and Gaza”.

7 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 392.

8 Benzion Dinur, “From the Conquest of the Land of Israel by the Arabs to the Crusades”, Israel in the Diaspora, Vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1960), 27-30, as cited in Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, 27.

9 Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1996), 24, 167.

10 Michael Rydelnik, Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Head-Lines Haven’t Told You (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004), 58-59. Israel consisted mostly of swampland, desert and barren wasteland due to the Ottoman policy of denuding forests through the centuries. Peters, From Time Immemorial, 221-68.

11 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 156-7, citing Jacob de Haas, History of Palestine (New York: Macmillan, 1934), 145, 258.

12 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 155-56, citing The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 ed. While some of Peters’ research is disputed, it has also been recently corroborated.

13 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 157.

14 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 223, 396; Shimon Apisdorf, Judaism in a Nutshell: Israel (Pikesville, Md.: Leviathan Press, 2003), 62-64; see generally Walter Lowdermilk, Palestine: Land of Promise (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1944).

15 Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, 84.

16 Ray Hanania, “The Wandering Palestinians”, Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2011.

17 See Howard Grief, The Legal Foundations and Borders of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008); Martin Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974), 10-11.

18 As quoted in Peters, From Time Immemorial, 412.

19 Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 21-38.

20 The New Palestine 38, no. 18 (May 18, 1948): 1.

21 British Superintendent of Police Memo, Haifa, April 26, 1948, as quoted in Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (New York: Bantam Books, 1973), 19.

22 Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949.

23 Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, 662-683, referencing Joseph Schechtman, Mufti and the Feuhrer (Loneon: Thomas Yoseloff Publishers, 1965), 139ff., 147-52; Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 16-20, 30, 62-63.

24 Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 62-63.

25 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 16; Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge, Mass.; Cambridge University Press, 2004), 603-04; Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 264-272, see also 8-15.

26 See for example Morris, Palestinian Refugee Problem, 588-89; Gilbert, The Arab Israeli Conflict, 57.

27 As reported in Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986, cited in Mitchell G. Bard, “The Palestinian Refugees,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013.

28 Myron Kaufman, The Coming Destruction of Israel (New York: American Library, 1970), 26-27, cited in Bard, “The Palestinian Refugees”; Iraqi prime minister Nimr el-Hawari, Sir Am Nakbah (Nazareth, Israel: 1952), as cited in “Refugees Forever?,” International Jerusalem Post, February 21, 2003, special supplement.

29 Karsh, Betrayed, 241-42.

30 Reported in Falastin a-Thaura, March 1973, as cited by Mitchell G. Bard, “The Refugees”. Myths and Facts Online, Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013.

The peace that dare not speak its name: untold story of Arab-Jewish reconciliation.

A shaft of fresh revelation dawned on me after watching the extraordinary YouTube clip featuring former terrorist Mosab Hassan Yousef berating Palestinian delegates at the UN for betraying their own people and fanning the flames of the conflict with Israel.

I can see now that British and other Western media – by censoring what is not on their agenda – are partly responsible for the continuing violence in the Middle East. Let me explain.

Son of Hamas Switches Allegiance

Yousef, son of Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, switched allegiance to Israel’s Shin Bet security service after witnessing the torture of fellow prisoners by their own (Arab-Muslim) people. He discovered, to his great surprise, that his Israeli interrogators were friendly and caring.

And later, in the midst of working undercover on their behalf, and saving many lives in the process by tipping off police about planned atrocities, he had a ‘Damascus Road’ experience in which met and came to love the Jewish Messiah after taking up an invitation to study the Bible at Jerusalem’s iconic YMCA – the invitation was handed to him outside the famous Damascus Gate, one of the entrances to the walled Old City.

But his life was now in double jeopardy – as if being a spy for Israel wasn’t dangerous enough, he was also forsaking his Islamic faith to follow Jesus. He was eventually forced to flee to America, where he is now courageously campaigning to spread the truth about Israel to a world media all too keen to swallow the ongoing propaganda denying Jewish connection to the territory.

‘Son of Hamas’ Mosab Hassan Yousef switched allegiance to Israel’s security service, and later came to love the Jewish Messiah.

Countering Vicious Lies

And so it was that he found himself as guest speaker for UN Watch¹ as he addressed delegates to the UN Human Rights Council last week.² As the Palestinian Authority delegation reacted with shock and irritation, he accused them of committing human rights abuses against their own people, describing the PA as “the greatest enemy of the Palestinian people”, adding: “If Israel did not exist, you would have no-one to blame.”

Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. See Photo Credits.Before Yousef spoke, country after country spewed attacks against Israel, accusing them of being a genocidal, apartheid state. But Yousef silenced them all when he accused the Palestinian leadership of being hypocrites.

“Where does your legitimacy come from?” he asked them. “The Palestinian people did not elect you and they did not appoint you to represent them. Your accountability is not to your own people. This is evidenced by your own total violation of their human rights. You kidnap Palestinian students from campus and torture them in your jails. You torture your political rivals. The suffering of the Palestinian people is the outcome of your selfish political interests.”³

And they used Israel as a scapegoat, he added.

Only One Peace Process

Yousef has found peace with the Jews, and with all men, through his relationship with Christ, having been reconciled both to God and man through his death on the cross (see Eph 2:14). His best-selling book, Son of Hamas,⁴ is still available in bookstores.

I have written widely about men like him who have come to love and honour the Jews, not through a political peace process involving endless negotiations and compromises, but through what Jesus did for all men as he took their sins and nailed them to the cross, thereby bringing an end to their enmity with one another – especially between Jew and Arab, descendants of Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham.

Yousef has found peace with the Jews, and with all men, through his relationship with Christ.

After attending a conference at Christ Church, Jerusalem, I wrote all about it in my book, Peace in Jerusalem, and continue to write about this precious subject as it lies at the very heart of the gospel which brings reconciliation between God and man and between Jew and Gentile.

Christ Church, Jerusalem. Photo: Charles Gardner.With my own eyes, I witnessed Jew and Arab embracing one another as they shared communion, representing the body and blood of the Lord who brought them together through his mercy and grace. In doing so, I also witnessed the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy: “For to us…a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called…Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6).

The Best Story Never Told

As a journalist of more than 40 years, I can spot a good story – and this, I reckoned, was the best story that has never been told: the answer to peace in the Middle East, and indeed the world. Over a two-week period, I offered my daily copy (free) to mainstream (Fleet Street) newspapers in the UK, but didn’t even receive the courtesy of a single reply to my emails.

Nevertheless, the inspiring stories were widely circulated to news outlets on four continents. So that’s why I say that the British media are partly responsible for the lack of progress in the Middle East, which has got considerably more violent since that 2014 gathering.

But it was so refreshing that historian AN Wilson tackled the ridiculous lengths to which political correctness has been taken in last Saturday’s Daily Mail,⁶ describing it as reflecting a “new dark age of intolerance”. Though not claiming to be a believer himself, he spoke up for those Christians who are treated with incredulity for believing, for instance, that abortion and sexual promiscuity are wrong.

Yet it is still very non-PC for our media to take an uncompromising stand on the Christian faith that underpins our nation with thousands of years of history, justice, innovation, education and care. It usually falls to others, these days, to spell out in no uncertain terms the total relevance to our world of the Lord Jesus Christ, who made it absolutely clear that he was not one of many options for guiding us to Heaven’s domain when he said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Notes

1 UN Watch is a Geneva-based NGO whose stated mission is “to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter”.

2 Jerusalem News Network, 29 September 2017, quoting Arutz-7.

3 Watch the full video here.

4 Written with Ron Brackin and published by Tyndale Momentum.

5 Daily Mail, 30 September 2017.

Thanks also to David Soakell of Christian Friends of Israel and South African friend Suzette van Rooyen.