In the Offense of the State of Israel Part 3

In the Defense…
Growing up, I attended numerous Christian schools and received a phenomenal education. One of the classes I took in high school was called “Apologetics”. If you are unfamiliar with what apologetics is, it comes from a verse in the Christian Bible, 1 Peter 3:15: “… Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you for the reason for the hope that you have. But respond with gentleness and respect”.
I have always been someone who has enjoyed debate and logic, so I was actually very excited to hear the logical arguments for why Christian religious scholars believed what they did. However, I was deeply dissatisfied by the answers that we were taught. They relied highly on circular reasoning; this is not due to a lack of understanding of logic but due to the subject matter. After all, we have no way to prove whether creationism, intelligent design, evolution, any other theory, or any combination of them are responsible for the beginning of the world. It comes down to an element of faith. However, what about the things in life that are not based on faith, but rather facts we can see with our own eyes?
I am heavily involved in the pro-Israel advocacy world and have been involved for about 5 years now. I have seen the different methods that we have attempted to use to demonstrate that Israel has the right to exist and is not an evil endeavor. I have been disappointed in all of the arguments and methods that have been presented and taught to me. Because at the end of the day, the goal of the Israel Advocacy and Education movement for the past 77 years has been to practice “hasbara”. For those unfamiliar with the term, “hasbara” comes from the root “lehasber” which means “to explain”. We have been attempting to explain away much of the anti-Israel hate that students have come face to face with on campus.
I recently led a delegation of 37 pro-Israel college students from over 30 American and Canadian college campuses who have been on the front lines of the campus battle. Our team surveyed the students on the accusations they are facing on college campuses of racism, apartheid, proportionality of war, terrorism, and more. Like how my high school had attempted to prepare the students to give a defense for their faith when they went out into the “real world”, I also wanted to prepare these students to have a defense for their Zionism. I heavily valued the attempt at gentleness and respect that had always been present in Christian apologetics because Christians are attempting to proselytize through apologetics to persuade others. So, I also wanted to provide them with communication tactics that would allow them to utilize the information I had shared with them so they could proselytize people to the pro-Israel cause. The following essay is an adaptation of the 2 hour long presentation I gave these students.
The students asked so many amazing questions that I cannot replicate here, however, something that they shared after the session struck me. Many students, like me, have spent years hearing the various formats of hasbara in the past. They were thrilled with the content of the session as they now felt more equipped. But not equipped to defend. No. They felt equipped to go “On the Offensive” on their campuses with the information.
So this is my attempt to be “In the Offense of the State of Israel”.
A Note on Structure
When our team surveyed the students on the information they needed to combat the awful things they were hearing on campus, we provided them with legal definitions for things such as apartheid, genocide, occupation, ethnic cleansing and more. We then asked students to explain a bit more about what they hear about these terms/arguments on their campuses. Finally, we asked students what information they felt they needed to learn more about in order to be confident in addressing the concerns being raised on campus.
Our team then spent over 20 hours compiling resources and information regarding the topics, and divided the concerns along the timeline of modern Israeli history in an attempt to give the session some structure. We were unable to answer every single question/argument, but did our best to combine/address concerns to be able to best empower students.
The major timeline points we decided to address were: The British Mandate, 1948, 1967, The Intifadas, 2005, and finally 2023. These are not entirely exact years, but more framing time reference points to major events in Israeli history that give rise to some of the more controversial claims made against Israel. If you have not read part 1 or part 2, you can do so here: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/in-the-offense-of-the-state-of-israel-part-1 and https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/in-the-offense-of-the-state-of-israel-part-2/.
1967
In 1967, the 6 day war broke out after Egypt barred Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran and amassed a military force in the Sinai and ordered out the UN peacekeeping force. The closure of the Straits is an act of war under international law and prompted what many consider to be an Israeli “preemptive” strike against the Egyptian air force. This was followed by a ground invasion of the Sinai where Egypt and into the Syrian Golan Heights to combat the shelling the Syrian army had been pursuing against the civilians of the Galilee since 1948. Additionally, due to Jordanian involvement in the war, Israel advanced into the Jordanian controlled West Bank and secured the border up to the Jordan River and reunited Jerusalem.
When the fighting ended, Israel’s territory tripled in size, containing all of the Sinai, most of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Jerusalem. However, in international law, the right of conquest, aka the ability to win territory through war, was abolished in the UN Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, Articles 9 and 11 which read as follows:
“Article 9:
Every State has the duty to refrain from resorting to war as an instrument of national policy, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with international law and order.
Article 11:
Every State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation of article 9.”
So Israel, according to international law, should return the territory it has just taken control over. However, this is not what happens for a variety of reasons.
East Jerusalem
East Jerusalem was de facto annexed after the conclusion of the 1967 war. The Arabs living in East Jerusalem were offered citizenship but most declined, favoring Israeli residency with the ability to keep their UNRWA status and benefits. This annexation becomes a de jure, or legally recognized, annexation after the 1980 Jerusalem Bill is passed in the Knesset defining a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Annexation is considered illegal under international law under the guidelines of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter. It is formally characterized as a crime of aggression in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998. It is worth noting that Israel has not ratified either international agreement. The Rome Statute reads as follows on the subject:
“2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
- The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State of part thereof;”
Again, I can hear you saying “Sadie, Jordan militarily occupied the West Bank until this point!” And you know what, neither me nor International Law cares about that. Granted for different reasons, but still. International Law doesn’t care because two different military occupations don’t make an internationally allowed annexation of territory. I don’t care that Jordan occupied the West Bank because it does not further our goal of advocating for why Israel does its best to comply with International Law. Back to the main content.
Annexations can be legitimized by other countries, which is what occurred with Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem. It is important to understand that just because a country’s occupation has been legitimized by another country does not make it legally allowable.
It is a similar story in the Israeli Golan Heights, where Israel officially annexed the territory in 1981. (Israel has since entered the remaining ⅓ of the territory of the geographical form of the Golan heights since the fall of Assad.) The residents of the Golan Heights also generally did not accept Israeli citizenship, as most were Druze residents who remained loyal to Syria from fear of eventual return in a peace treaty with Syria.
The Sinai
The Sinai was a bit of a different story altogether as it was fought over from 1967 until 1970 in the War of Attrition. The War of Attrition is fought in basically a stalemate for 4 years until there is a ceasefire that is eventually broken by the 1973 War/Yom Kippur War. After the 1973 war ends, and there are peace negotiations with Israel, Israel agrees to a tiered withdrawal from the Sinai. This format is what gives rise to the “land for peace” mentality.
West Bank
Israel attempts to return the West Bank to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan however, the Jordanians are not interested in reassuming control of the territory due to the societal instability that the Palestinians created in the Jordanian kingdom. The situation was exacerbated by the population demographics of Jordan, where approximately 1 in 5 people is of palestinian descent. The Jordanian crown refused to offer citizenship to the Arabs residing in the west bank as a manner to continue the Palestinian struggle against Israel and placate its population.
This led to a bit of an issue in the West Bank. Israel was not able to return the territory to the former power, Israel didn’t want to annex it as they would have to offer citizenship to the residents which would lead to more Arabs than Jew in the Jewish state. Israel isn’t allowed to abandon the territory without a civilian government structure. The solution that international law offered was military occupation.
Military occupations are defined in the Hague Convention of 1907 under Section 3 Military Authority over the territory of the hostile state. Israel has not signed or ratified the Hague Convention of 1907, however, the High Court argued that the Convention is a part of customary international law, and therefore binding on Israel. Articles 42 and 43 read:
“Art. 42.
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.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”
The IDF assumed control of the West Bank as the military occupying power and created the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, or COGAT, to oversee the governance operations and ensure compliance with International Law. Israel notably objects to the application of the 4th Geneva Convention. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Geneva convention is not applicable by Israeli courts because it is “contractual” international law that would require specific passage of the text by Israeli legislators before the courts would consider it. This status is not applied to the Hague Convention which the ISC considers customary international law.
Gaza Strip
A similar situation to the West Bank developed in Gaza which had been occupied by Egypt since 1948. Egypt had also not granted citizenship to the residents of the area in an attempt to perpetuate the conflict. Israel additionally militarily occupied the Gaza Strip when Egypt refused return of the territory. The Arabs residing in the West Bank and Gaza were not offered citizenship as military occupation is not considered permanent, and offering citizenship to these people would constitute a de facto occupation.
With the sudden control of many of the religious sites that Jews had been forbidden access to for thousands of years, many religious Jews believed that the Messiah was near. This belief served as the spark and lended legitimacy to what would become the settlement movement.
One major issue that the international community cites with the Israeli settlement policy is that transfer of populations is not allowed according to the 4th Geneva Convention which reads as follows.
“Art. 49. – Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power, or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
It is the last sentence that the international community often cites in objection to the settlements. If you remember when I mentioned earlier that the ISC ruled that the 4th Geneva Convention did not apply to the territories it occupied as it had not been ratified by the Knesset. This is how Israel rationalizes the settlement policy while maintaining that it adheres to international law.
Changing the subject a bit to the right of return and indigeneity, let us examine UNSC Res. 242. In the aftermath of the war, UNSC Resolution 242 of 1967 was passed which states: “
- Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
- Withdrawl of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ;
- Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integreity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force ;”
However, there is a dispute that surrounds this resolution as it was passed being held in equal force in English and French. One language says that it is withdraw as a condition for peace, and the other says that peace is a condition for withdraw. You can imagine the issues that can cause.
Additionally, this resolution is often cited as proof of the Palestinian Right to Return as an indigenous group to their lands and claim sovereignty.
The UN Definition of Indigeneity was only formulated in 1982 in the Martinez Cobo Report which defined indigenous groups to be groups possessing historical continuity with one or more of the following factors: Land, Ancestry, Culture, Language, Residence, and Other Relevant Factors. I will not pass judgement on whether or not Palestinians are indigenous to Israel. However, when advocating for Israel, it is important to understand that Palestinians feel as though they meet the requirements to be indigenous in the land. This indigenous feeling led to the rise of Palestinian resistance.
Around the same time as the 1967 war, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is formed by the Arab League. The PLO is a sort of umbrella organization, under which Fatah sits. Fatah’s ideology falls under the Palestinian National Charter of 1968. Article 21 says:
“The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.”
Thank You
Thank you for being willing to read this multi-part blog post of a longer essay I have written and am interested in having people consume and critique. I hope to create more content on topics such as this and provide Israel advocacy advice and recommendations. If this is something that interests you, please engage with my content and feel free to reach out to discuss anything I have written here!
I will hopefully be going on the road soon to speak on this exact topic with American College and University students, and if that interests you, please send me a message.