How to answer

anti -Israel

arguments

ELDER OF ZIYON

להשיבדע מה

You have my permission to tackle anyone violating the rule

PLEASE, NO PHOTOS OR VIDEO

Just a guy, you know?

Blogging since 2004

Original analysis, historical research, legal arguments, lots of sarcasm, Arabic article translation, unusual links, cartoons, videos. posters, infographics, snark, scoops, media criticism, and more

16,000 posts

Quoted all over – CNN, NYT Lede, Commentary, Tablet, etc.

This week a cartoon of mine was published in Forbes

Spoke at YU/2010, AZM/2012

Tweeting since 2008; 17,000 tweets

WHO AM I, ANYWAY?

How to answer the most popular anti-

Israel slurs

I am not repeating my last YU talk; it is online

TODAY’S TOPIC:

You will not convince dyed-in-the-wool Israel-haters

Most message boards and YouTube comments are filled with idiots

You are arguing for the audience, not usually to convince the person you

are arguing with

Twitter arguments with reporters or famous people is ideal, but the

format makes it challenging. But you can sometimes elicit a real news

story by doing that

Amazon message boards can be effective long-term, audience is small

but potentially influential

WHEN IS IT WORTH ARGUING?

Depending on the circumstance, sometimes you want to engage your

opponent – and sometimes you want to ridicule him

There is a reason for “ את שניו הקהה “

Other times brevity is more important than 100% accuracy, because by

the time you explain the full truth, you lost your audience

This happens often in my cartoons/posters – exaggeration to make a point at

the expense of pure accuracy

Always keep in mind who your audience is – it is rarely your opponent

Helping the morale of your own side (preaching to the converted) is also

valuable

ARGUMENTS VS. SCORING POINTS

You only have so many words/characters to make an

argument

But you need to know a lot of background to make a short,

effective argument

We will try to briefly explain the major arguments, and also

give the Twitter (sound-bite) versions when possible

We will also try to use the arguments as a springboard into

an attack – because you cannot win a war playing defense

THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT

Joseph Massad loves to say this, without ever defining colonialism!

Arabs say this because they believe Israel was placed in the Middle East

as a Western project to put Westerners into Arab lands

ANSWER:

Colonialism by definition requires a “metropole,” a mother country – Zionism

has none besides Israel itself. Israel is hardly a British satellite.

Zionism is the national liberation movement for the Jewish nation, making it

as anti-colonialist as possible!

For those who argue that settlements are colonialist, the answer is the same –

whether you agree with settlements or not, the settlers aren’t moving there for

colonialism, but for Jewish nationhood on historic Jewish homelands.

ARGUMENT 1:

“ISRAEL IS A COLONIALIST STATE”

The history of the Jewish nation in the Middle East does not start in

1948, or with Herzl, or with the First Aliyah – it begins with Moses and

Joshua

You must never concede to the other framework or else you are at a

disadvantage of having Jews show up out of nowhere to displace

“indigenous” residents

Jews didn’t move to Israel – they returned!

THE FRAMEWORK IS CRITICAL

“The Jews aren’t sharing the land

fairly”

Fayyad, Abbas, really everyone uses

this term

What is “historic Palestine”?

Answer:

Nothing at all like the boundaries of the

British Mandate

Lots of “Eastern Palestine” in today’s

Jordan, none of the Negev

My estimate: Israel takes up about half

of “historic Palestine” within the Green

Line (4000 West/3000 WB/4000 TJ)

Which brings up many new questions….

ARGUMENT #2:

“ISRAEL IS TAKING UP 78% OF HISTORIC

PALESTINE”

If “historic Palestine” includes parts of Jordan, why don’t Palestinian Arabs claim that area?

Why didn’t the PLO claim the West Bank and Gaza before 1967? (1964 PLO Charter explicitly excludes those areas!)

Have you noticed that their claims are always congruent with what Jews control?

Why do they accept the boundaries drawn by the hated Western colonialists?

“Invented people,” anyone?

WHY AREN’T TODAY’S PALESTINIANS

CLAIMING EASTERN PALESTINE?

The haters usually harness lots of fake or out-of-context quotes to “prove” this.

For example, a fake quote by Ben Gurion: “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” Quoted by Ilan Pappe but not one of his sources checked out.

Researching them takes a long time.

Counterexamples, however, are easy.

The Palestine Post archives shows no interest in getting rid of Arabs, ever.

The Haganah explicitly tried to get Arabs to stay in Haifa.

Ben Gurion did say “In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well….”

And if Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse Arabs, they are doing a really poor job of it, since there are more today in Israel then ever.

ARGUMENT #3:

“ZIONISTS ALWAYS INTENDED TO

ETHNICALLY CLEANSE ARABS”

How many Jews remained in the West Bank from 1949-1967? Exactly

zero.

Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, and so forth – now, that’s ethnic cleansing!

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ETHNIC

CLEANSING…

History: In 1936-9, the Arabs revolted and hundreds were killed. Tens of thousands of wealthy Arabs fled to Lebanon to wait out the fighting; they then returned.

In 1947, when fighting started within hours of the Partition vote, the rich and powerful started fleeing first.

The vast majority didn’t flee because of either massacres or because of expulsions (or because Arab leaders told them to.) Most fled out of simple fear of fighting, and fear of Jewish revenge for the 1929 massacres. Rumors of massacres helped, as did the collapse of the authorities who fled, Others feared being branded “collaborators.”

Jews had fear too – but had nowhere to run. Arabs assumed their fellow Arabs would accept them, Jews had no choice.

(Many, although not most, of the Arabs in Palestine moved in only the previous 60 years or so. Their “Palestinian” identity doomed them in the Arab world they came from! )

ARGUMENT #4:

“ISRAEL EXPELLED 700,000 ARAB

REFUGEES IN THE NAKBA”

Arab nations refuse to naturalize their Palestinian brethren – for over 60

years

Israel did not want a potential fifth column to return without assurances

The UN created UNRWA specifically for Palestine refugees, with different

definitions and a different mandate than later UNHCR. Arab leaders have

been treating the PalArabs like pawns since 1949 – and they still do

(Syria, Iraq). Lebanon is particularly bad.

The “refugees” themselves are given no say in what they want to do –

when they can become citizens they jump at it

Arab nations are ignoring generally accepted “Rights of the Child” (to

citizenship) and others

Human Rights Watch, amazingly, supports Palestinian Arab

statelessness

ARGUMENT #5:

“ISRAEL CREATED, AND IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR, THE REFUGEE PROBLEM”

UNGA 194 is not international law; it even includes portions about

Jerusalem that were never accepted by anyone

It deliberately does not use the word “right” when dealing with the issue

It only says “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” – that clause is important

The UN Conciliation Commission (created by UNGA 194!) in 1950

determined “homes” as meaning actual houses, not “homeland.”

Compensation is appropriate – indeed, the only solution - for those

whose homes no longer exist.

ARGUMENT #6:

“UNGA 194 DEMANDS THAT REFUGEES

HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN”

SO WHY DOESN’T/DIDN’T ISRAEL ALLOW

ARABS TO “RETURN”?

Israel always wanted to include the issue of return/compensation to be

part of an overall comprehensive peace agreement – which was the

major goal of UNGA 194’s Conciliation Commission

There definitely was fear of a fifth column, especially among those who

saw their Arab neighbors turn violent

Dorothy Bar-Adon in Palestine Post described exactly why the idea of snipers

returning to the hill above her village is not possible

In 1967, thousands of Arabs fled from Gaza and the WB to Jordan even

though they weren’t under threat – they simply didn’t want to live under

Jewish rule. Israel allowed many to return but not the potential terrorists.

ARGUMENT #7:

“THERE ARE MORE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES

THAN ANY OTHER REFUGEE GROUP”

“5 million Palestinian refugees vs. 3 million from Afghanistan, 1.6 million from Iraq…”

Comparing apples to oranges:

UNRWA definition of “refugee” different from that of UNHCR, UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

UNRWA counts descendants (practically all of them)

UNRWA counts citizens of Jordan

UNRWA counts people in their homeland!

Actual number of remaining refugees: probably far less than 100,000

UNHCR tries to resettle refugees; UNRWA does not

98% of UNRWA staff is Palestinian Arab – it is now a political organization, against its own charter

Fun fact: Israel resettled its Arab refugees within a couple of years and refused UN camps saying the idea was “repugnant” – Israel treated its Arab refugees better than any Arab country did!

ARGUMENT #8:

JEWS HAVE BEEN STEALING LAND FROM

PALESTINIANS

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MAP THAT LIES:

1946 picture: Private Jewish-owned land vs. government-owned and

leaded lands

Jews owned about 1/3 of the privately owned land, Arabs 2/3

Jews were under severe restrictions on purchasing land from the 1930s

through 1948

Partition has nothing to do with land ownership – and Arabs rejected

partition!

1967 map – WB was Jordanian/Gaza Egyptian, not “Palestinian.” Lots of

public lands there as well.

Arabs own land in Israel as well – not in the later pictures

A MAP THAT TELLS THE TRUTH

ISRAEL’S CONCESSIONS FOR PEACE

Land:

The entire Sinai – 90% of the territories!

Southern Lebanon

Gaza

Allowing the PA to control much of Judea/Samaria

Other:

Accepting a two-state solution

Recognizing a terror group (the PLO)

Offering to share Jerusalem!

Negotiating the Golan with Syria

Arab nations increased their

threats against Israel (radio

broadcasts, cartoons) during

May 1967

Egypt expelled UN troops from

the Sinai

Israel said it would not initiate

any hostilities as long as

Egypt kept the Straits of Tiran

open – and Egypt closed

them, a casus belli

ARGUMENT #9:

ISRAEL WAS THE AGGRESSOR IN 1967

The mouths of the guns of eight Arab countries: Sudan,

Algeria, United Arab Republic, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq,

Syria and Lebanon. Al Jarida , Beirut, May 31, 1967

Israel did fire the first shot,

against Egypt, but it was

hardly the aggressor

Even so, Israel did not start

the war on the Syrian or

Jordanian fronts – the Arabs

did, even after Israel warned

them

Therefore, every inch of land

“occupied” today was gained

in a defensive war by any

definition of the term

International law on land

gained in a defensive war is

inconclusive

1967, CONTINUED

Israel never had internationally recognized borders

The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 states:

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”

The “Green Line” was the armistice line roughly marking where the armies ended up before the last ceasefire in 1949 (with some adjustments)

The borders, along with issues like refugees, were always meant to be part of a comprehensive peace agreement

UNSC 242 makes this clear:

Israel and her neighbors have the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” This admits that the existing boundaries were neither secure nor recognized.

ARGUMENT #10:

ISRAEL MUST RETURN TO ITS

INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS

This gets into minutiae of international law, and I am not a lawyer, but …

Background: Definition of “occupation” comes from Hague Convention of

1907:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority

of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such

authority has been established and can be exercised.

The Fourth Geneva Conventions do not define “occupation” but set up

rules to protect civilians under occupation

ARGUMENT #11A:

ISRAEL ILLEGALLY OCCUPIES THE

TERRITORIES

The land isn’t “occupied” but “disputed”

The reason it isn’t occupied is that it had no recognized sovereign before 1967, as Jordan’s annexation of the WB was not recognized by most nations

The Hague definition only applies to parties of the Convention, meaning states

Moreover, Israel has the best legal claim to Judea and Samaria, based on the terms of the British Mandate approved by the League of Nations of the Jewish people’s right to settle in Palestine

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home….”

The League of Nations decisions remain legal under the UN

Since Jordan’s claim from 1949-1967 was illegal, the only valid claim on the land is that of the Jews under the terms of the League of Nations

FIRST ANSWER:

THE TERRITORIES AREN’T OCCUPIED

(I found this just last week)

From Principles of International Law, Hans Kelsen, 1952:

If the territory is not to be considered a stateless territory, it must be

considered to be under the sovereignty of the occupant belligerent, which—in

such a case—ceases to be restricted by the rules concerning belligerent

occupation.

Israel has voluntarily enforced the Geneva Convention humanitarian

rules in the territories, but never accepted the idea that they are legally

occupied – it always maintained they were disputed

SECOND ANSWER:

THE LAWS OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION

DO NOT APPLY TO NON-STATES

International law does not have any definition of what occupations are

“legal” and which are “illegal.” It is merely a state of being.

The UN will declare some occupations to be illegal, but there is no

consistency in its definition (Iraq illegally occupied Kuwait but the US

legally occupied Iraq)

Saying that Israel “illegally occupies” the territories is a rhetorical, not a

legal, argument

(Yael Ronen tries to create such a distinction ex post facto in a paper I saw, but the paper accepts the UN

declarations and tries to shoehorn in a definition after the fact.)

THIRD POINT:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ILLEGAL

OCCUPATION

I think a good definition of whether territory is occupied is whether the

“occupier” can replace the mayors of the cities. Or fire the sanitation

workers.

By the Hague’s definition, it requires “boots on the ground”

By Geneva’s definition:

[T]he Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to

the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such

territory

Gaza is certainly not occupied now; neither is Area A, as Israel is not

acting as the government in those areas

People who say that controlling the borders is “occupation” have zero

legal basis for their opinion

I’ve seen groups like the UN and Amnesty twist themselves into pretzels

trying to argue that Gaza is occupied today

FOURTH POINT:

GAZA AND AREA A ARE CLEARLY NOT

OCCUPIED

This is accepted as fact by virtually the entire world and is the single

hardest argument to fight against

Israel has never done a proper job countering this idea and now it is

accepted as fact, meaning even strong arguments are not going to

change anyone’s mind

The source for this charge is Geneva IV Article 49 para. 6:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian

population into the territory it occupies.”

ARGUMENT #11B:

THE SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL

Legal scholars (Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone) have argued that Geneva is only prohibiting forced transfers of the population, as practiced by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, not the voluntary movement of the population to the territories

The Levy Report uses the argument that Israel is not an occupier and that it has the best claim to the land

UNSC 242, which is accepted by Israel and has the force of law, says that Israel does not need to return all the territory, meaning that the territories not returned are effectively disputed “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”

(deliberately not “the territories”)

Israel has already given back about 90% of the land won in 1967 (the Sinai)

Answers 1 and 2 to #11 apply here as well

I have not seen a decent answer to the Levy report

Would Geneva allow uprooting hundreds of thousands of people from their homes?

ANSWERS

Your audience already fell asleep while you tried to make these

arguments

So what else can you do?

BUT LEGAL ANSWERS ARE BORING

The emotional arguments:

This is the land of our forefathers, where all of Jewish history started

We have cried to return to this land for millennia

We do not want a repeat of what Jordan did to the Mount of Olives (etc.)

Jewish human rights are no less important than Palestinian Arab human rights

The security arguments:

Having Ben Gurion airport within shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft range is not very

appealing

A nine miles wide state is virtually indefensible

The recent history arguments:

Withdrawing from Gaza didn’t bring peace, why won’t history repeat?

Remember who won the last PA elections – Hamas

Sometimes, the status quo is the lesser of all evils – the perfect is the enemy

of the good

Terror now is way lower than during the heady days of Oslo

GO ON THE OFFENSIVE WITH

SOUND BITES

President Johnson, September 1968:

“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”

President Reagan, September 1982:

“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”

Secretary of State Shultz, September 1988:

“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”

President Bush, April 2004:

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

US STATEMENTS ON 1967 BORDERS

Usually with some self-righteous talk about human rights and equality

Answer:

Admittedly, there is tension between the concept of a “Jewish State” and full

democracy – but:

The entire reason for a Jewish State is to have one place in the planet that

Jews do not have to worry about suffering from discrimination.

The right of Jews to national self-determination is no less important

Israel safeguards the rights of its Arab population as much as possible; in fact

Israeli Arabs have more rights than Arabs in any Arab country

You cannot claim racism when Israeli Arabs have been on the Supreme Court

and even acting President

(Not to mention the number of Arabs that win reality TV shows)

ARGUMENT #12:

A “JEWISH STATE” IS INHERENTLY RACIST

They have a problem with a Jewish state, but not with over 20 Arab states –

that discriminate against non-Arabs? And most of which enshrine Islamic

law as the main source of legislation in their constitutions?

This is typical. The accusers measure Israel against an idealized perfect and

impossible standard but no one else must reach that standard.

The fact is that they don’t care about human rights; they just want to bash

Israel and they use human rights as a club to do it

Notice that they are silent at anti-Palestinian discrimination by Arab

countries

Lebanon – no land ownership, many jobs off limits

Every Arab country except Jordan – no citizenship, as opposed to other Arabs

Syria slaughtered over 800 Palestinian Arabs so far – silence from the “pro-

Palestinian activists”

The Iraqi Palestinian refugees

JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE HYPOCRISY

OF THE ACCUSERS

“Hypocrites who attack only Israel in the name of human rights are the

same who deny only the rights of Jewish people to self-determination”

“Using ‘human rights’ as a weapon against only Israel while tacitly

condoning abuses by Arabs makes one a hypocrite, not a humanitarian”

“The major purveyors of Holocaust denial and antisemitism today are the

ones Israel is expected to make concessions to for peace.”

SOME TWEETS TO POINT OUT THE

HYPOCRISY

Especially popular after Shlomo Sand’s idiotic book

Muslims like to say Judaism is only a religion, not a

nation

Answer:

Jews have always considered themselves a

nation

ד (דברי הימים א יז כא) אל גוי אח ומי כע מ ישר

ארץ ב

The world has also considered Jews to be a

nation, often referring to Jews as “Israelites” in

the 19th century

They are certainly more of a nation than

“Palestinians” are!

ARGUMENT #13:

JEWS ARE NOT A NATION

Israel regards the two-state solution as “two states for two peoples”

So does the US

The PLO has always been dead-set against that

2010 poll: 90.7% of Palestinians said it was essential or desirable to have

Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean (AWRAD)

“Moderate” Salam Fayyad insisted that “two states for two peoples” not be

mentioned in joint press release with Israel’s deputy FM

“Palestine Papers” shows adamant refusal for that formula

Nabil Shaath (“moderate”) in 2011 said Palestine would be a state for one people

but they will never accept Israel as the state of the Jewish people

2011 poll: 91% agreed “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land”

Same poll: 68% said the real goal is to start with two states and move to one

single Palestinian state destroying Israel

This drives the Israeli left crazy

ARGUMENT #14:

THE PALESTINIANS ACCEPT A TWO-STATE

SOLUTION

Popular even before last week’s elections proved it wrong

The facts:

In 1988, Israel would never consider talking to the PLO

In 1993, Israel had a peace treaty but still refused to accept a Palestinian Arab state

Rabin in 1995: “We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. …First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty…The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term…

In 2001, Israel offered a Palestinian state on over 90% of WB

In 2004, Israel abandoned Gaza and uprooted thousands of Jews

Today, the “rightist” Prime Minister accepts a two state solution in theory. His position is not far off Peace Now in 1989 – talking with the PLO and accepting a Pal state – and to the left of Yitzchak Rabin, Nobel Peace Prize winner!

ARGUMENT #15:

ISRAEL IS TURNING MORE HAWKISH

Mahmoud Abbas in 2011:

“The Palestinian leadership is still adherent to the national agenda which was

approved by the Palestinian National Council in 1988, and never gave up on

any of the inalienable principles as some claim.“

No public movement on “right to return,” Jerusalem, “refugees”, water,

demilitarized state, “1967 lines”

Abbas used to accept peace talks with Israel while settlement building

continued – he made the decision to stop negotiating without a

settlement freeze as a new condition in 2009 (Palestine Papers, showing

George Mitchell upset with Erekat over this: “You’re not taking the same

position as before. You negotiated without a freeze all the time.”)

So while Israel moved to the left, the PA moved to the right – yet no one

in the media notices this and the world still makes demands of Israel

ARGUMENT #16:

ABBAS IS A MODERATE

Abbas is negotiating to include two genocidal terror groups in the PLO

(Hamas and Islamic Jihad)

Abbas just accused Zionists of the 1930s of complicity with the Nazis in

the Holocaust

Abbas himself wrote a Holocaust-denial paper minimizing the number of

Jews killed

Abbas has claimed that his family was expelled from Tzfat in 1948; in

Arabic he admitted that they fled before any Jewish troops arrived

fearing Jewish reprisals for the 1929 massacres

Abbas told Western media he is against naming public squares after

terrorists; in Arabic he supports it

Abbas has praised the terrorist mastermind behind the Munich Olympics

massacre (Abbas in fact bankrolled the operation in 1972)

ABBAS IS AN EXTREMIST AND A LIAR

He claimed that the Israeli demand for calling it a “Jewish state” was a new demand by Netanyahu; in fact Olmert demanded it in 2007 (at least)

The PLO refuses to recognize the existence of the Jewish people (Palestine Papers: “Recognizing the Jewish state implies recognition of a Jewish people and recognition of its right to self-determination. …Therefore, recognition of the Jewish people and their right of self-determination may lend credence to the Jewish people’s claim to all of Historic Palestine.”

Abbas told the Arab League that Israel was “ethnically cleansing” Arabs from Jerusalem.

MORE ABBAS LIES

January 2013: “Jews were never expelled from Egypt”

February 2012: “Israel is changing the character of Jerusalem by

allowing the Hurva synagogue to be built higher than the Dome of the

Rock”

February 2012: “Archaeologists found no evidence for Jewish Temples in

Jerusalem”

April 2012: “Zionists forced Iraqi Jews to emigrate using threats of

violence and murder”

May 2011: Claimed that Zionists started expelling Arabs immediately

after 1947 partition vote; in fact Arabs started attacking immediately

(and Jews were expelled from Jaffa first!)

January 2013 and other times: Abbas praised Nazi-collaborator anti-

semitic Mufti of Jerusalem

YET MORE ABBAS LIES AND DELUSIONS

September 2011: Claimed Obama promised him a full state within a year in 2010. It never happened.

September 2011: at UN, Abbas claimed that settler train wild pigs and dogs to attack Palestinians; pigs uproot Palestinian trees

September 2011 to NYT: “We don’t want to delegitimize Israel” but then “We have been under occupation for 63 years.”

September 2012: “We are a state which applies the fourth Geneva convention.” This while Gaza was bombarding Israeli civilians with rockets.

December 2012: “Hamas approves of two-state solution”

May 2012: “Lebanese Palestinians do not want citizenship”

November 2011: “Israel’s acceptance to UN was preconditioned on accepting UNGC 181 and 194”

I’M NOT DONE YET WITH ABBAS’ LIES

THE “MODERATE” REJECTIONIST

Abbas is “moderate” – next to suicide bombers

Netanyahu is “hawkish” – next to Ha’aretz

Using those words without context is worse than lying – it encourages

people to think of Israel as the obstacle to peace

“MODERATION” IS RELATIVE

Variant: Israel is not a democracy because it doesn’t allow non-citizen

Palestinian Arabs to vote

The charge is so disgusting and so wrong that to answer it in kind only

gives it legitimacy

My answers are in poster form:

ARGUMENT #17:

ISRAEL IS AN APARTHEID STATE

“APARTHEID?”

“APARTHEID?”

Every Arab state discriminates against Palestinians, specifically

Jews being ethnically cleansed out of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon isn’t

apartheid?

Over 100,000 Egyptian Copts fleeing

Christians throughout the Middle East being forced out

A Judenrein Palestine

WHO PRACTICES APARTHEID?

Goldstone Report was the worst, but HRW and Amnesty say this routinely as well

Alternate: Israel’s aim is so good that no civilians should ever be killed

If Israel is targeting civilians, it is doing a very poor job!

Roughly 50% of those killed in Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense were civilian – an extraordinarily low number for urban warfare

Hamas admitted the Cast Lead numbers – a couple of years later

I had a team counting “martyrs”

Some of those supposedly killed by Israel were killed by Hamas rockets that fell short

Many civilians are killed “hanging out” with terrorist targets (brothers, friends)

Unfortunately, getting information from the IDF is still not easy

ARGUMENT #18:

ISRAEL TARGETS CIVILIANS

This is seen a lot around Christmas, blaming Israel for Bethlehem

Christians fleeing

Fact: They started fleeing under Jordanian rule

If the security barrier is so terrible for Christians, then why are more

Muslims moving to Bethlehem?

Just this past year Muslims in Bethlehem tried to stop a pastor from

putting up a billboard with Jesus on it

In 1967, Fatah – Abbas’ party – threatened Christian tourists for

Christmas – and now they claim it is Israel that threatens Christians?

ARGUMENT #18A:

ISRAEL TARGETS CHRISTIANS

One question: why?

Zionists even accepted the partition plan in 1947 without Jerusalem (an

“international city.”)

Insisting that Jerusalem is a necessity is not the same as it really being a

necessity

British officials in 1921 set up the Mandate to include Jerusalem as part

of the Jewish state and not part of any Arab state. Why? Sir Henry

McMahon said because Jerusalem wasn’t that important to Arabs at the

time!

From 1949-1967, Jordan did practically nothing to enhance the city or

the importance of Jerusalem

ARGUMENT #19:

CONTIGUITY/JERUSALEM NECESSARY

FOR “PALESTINE” TO BE VIABLE

Chaim Weizmann famously said the Jews would accept a state the size

of a tablecloth

When your priority is the safety of your people, statehood is the most

important thing, not borders

But when your priority isn’t the building of one state but the destruction

of another….you insist that the heart of the other state gets taken away

Similarly to how the PA talks about Syrian Palestinians and Lebanese

Palestinians – their welfare is far less important than the “right of return”

to destroy Israel

As far as contiguity being necessary for a viable state…

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

“If Israel holds onto the territories, Jews will soon be practicing apartheid against the Arab majority”

Variant:” Israel is not a democracy now because Palestinian Arabs couldn’t vote in the January elections”

Um, non-citizens cannot vote in any country. You know that, right?

The PA has autonomy and (theoretically) holds its own elections. Should settlers be allowed to vote in them?

Gaza is not under Israeli control. Neither is Area A, and Area B has autonomy as well. Over 95% of Palestinian Arabs live outside of Israeli control under their own government.

Israel doesn’t want to control them – but it needs to protect its own citizens

Pals demand “all or nothing” – and the world’s believing them is what keeps peace far away

ARGUMENT #20:

ISRAEL IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BECAUSE

IT CONTROLS SO MANY PALESTINIANS

We’ve seen many times that people say “If Israel would do X for peace,

then Y will happen”

“If Israel withdraws to the ‘1967 lines’ then there will be peace”/”Palestinians

would get no support for breaking the agreement”

They are invariably wrong

Time 1988: “If [Israel puts forth a detailed plan for peace and] the

Palestinians reject an offer reasonable people can identify as

forthcoming and courageous -- as they have rejected every attempt at

compromise for almost a century -- [then] no one could fault Israel for

then saying, "Shalom. Come to talk to us again when you've grown up.“

But it doesn’t work. And it didn’t work in Gaza. Or in Lebanon.

And there is no evidence it would work today with the PA.

THE “IF/THEN” FALLACY

Israel has consistently tried to come up with “win-win” formulas that help

everyone

The Arabs have consistently acted (and said) that if Israel wins, they lose

– it is a zero-sum game

This makes compromise nearly impossible – you have to play games to

make the other side feel like they “won”; and if they won, then they are

powerful and don’t need a peace agreement; they can win again

Think about Hamas and Hezbollah claiming victory

ZERO-SUM VS. WIN-WIN

Lots of Westerners honestly, truly want to see peace

Nothing wrong with that – until it interferes with their ability to see things

clearly

Arab abuses, incitement, hate, anti-semitism and lies are constantly

downplayed in the mistaken impression that ignoring them makes them

go away or publicizing them makes it worse

On the contrary – exposing them shames them, and shame is the most

effective tool the West has

Peace is great, but détente is not too bad either!

WISHFUL THINKING VS. REALITY

QUESTIONS (BEFORE THE HASBY

AWARDS)

2013 HASBY AWARDS

Winners are chosen completely and utterly subjectively based

on nominations on my blog

Nominees:

Avi Mayer

David HaIvri

Challah Hu Akbar

Martin Kramer

Arsen Ostrovsky

BEST PRO-ISRAEL TWEETER

BEST PRO-ISRAEL TWEETER

WINNER

Nominees:

Douglas Murray

Melanie Phillips

The Commentator

Gatestone Institute

Charles Krauthammer

Evelyn Gordon

BEST PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA OUTLET

NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ISRAEL

BEST PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA OUTLET

NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ISRAEL

WINNER

Nominees:

Caroline Glick

Martin Kramer

Daniel Gordis

Barry Rubin

BEST PRO-ISRAEL COMMENTATOR

BEST PRO-ISRAEL COMMENTATOR

WINNER

Nominees:

Algemeiner

Times of Israel

Israel HaYom

Tablet

JPost

BEST ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PRO-ISRAEL

MEDIA OUTLET

BEST ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA

OUTLET

WINNER

Nominees:

CAMERA

Honest Reporting

BBC Watch

CiF Watch

David G Daily Mideast Media Sampler

Huffington Post monitor

BEST MAINSTREAM MEDIA WATCHDOG

BEST MAINSTREAM MEDIA WATCHDOG

WINNER

Nominees:

Israellycool

Israel Matzav

Missing Peace

Daphne Anson

Augean Stables

Sultan Knish

Daled Amos

This Ongoing War

Size Doesn't Matter

BEST PRO-ISRAEL BLOG

(PRESENT COMPANY EXCLUDED)

BEST PRO-ISRAEL BLOG

WINNERS

Nominees:

Pat Condell, Israel and the United Nations

The Red Line (Shraga Simmons)

Zionism without Jerusalem (Im Tirtzu)

The Children are Ready (Temple Institute)

The Rhythm of Israel (AJC)

Real Apartheid in the Middle East (Stand With Us)

IDF aid missions around the world (IDF)

Israel vs. Palestine (cartoon)

BEST PRO-ISRAEL VIDEO

BEST PRO-ISRAEL VIDEO

WINNER

The Red Line

Many categories didn’t get enough nominees that were seconded, but on

my blog you can check them out:

Funniest Hasbara

Willingness to Confront the Enemy

Best “own goal” – Israel-haters who screwed up

Best article

Best speech

Best NGO Watchdog

Best Arabic Media Watchdog

OTHER CATEGORIES TO CHECK OUT

THANKS FOR COMING

ElderOfZiyon.com