In the Offense of the State of Israel Part 4

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, part 2, or part 3, you can do so here: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/in-the-offense-of-the-state-of-israel-part-1, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/in-the-offense-of-the-state-of-israel-part-2/, and https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/in-the-offense-of-the-state-of-israel-part-3/.
First and Second Intifada
I will not be addressing the sparking incidents of the first or second intifada, they are very easily googleable and do not add much to our conversation here.
What is important to understand about the intifadas is that it is the point in the conflict that the idea is popularized that Israeli civilians are legitimate targets. This comes from the overlap of a few specific ideas: indigeneity, the right to resist and the rights of a combatant.
The right to resist is defined in the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, Article 1, Paragraph 4 which reads:
“ 4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
Why is this such a big deal? As mentioned before, the UN Definition of Indigeneity was developed for a 1982 report where Indigienety was defined by having historical congruency with at least one of the following factors: Land, Ancestry, Culture, Language, Residence, and Other Relevant Factors. Jews obviously meet the requirements to be indigenous to the land of Israel via these factors. So Palestinians also lose the right to resist on the basis of alien occupation and colonial domination.
Also, in 1975, the UN passed UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 which states that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. In the combination of these IHL principles, then Palestinians are legally entitled to attack Israel. However, the UNGA Resolution 3379 was repealed in 1991 by the passage of Resolution 46/86.
Additionally, the right to resist must follow the International Humanitarian Law guidelines which state that civilians may not be intentionally targeted by military activity. The main target of the Palestinian terror attacks of the intifada were Israeli civilians. However, the Palestinian leadership justified these actions by claiming that all Israelis are legitimate targets as all Israelis are occupying as no Israel ought to legally exist. This line of thinking can be demonstrated in the PLO charter we mentioned before and the Hamas charter I will mention later.
So, if it’s not resistance under international law then what is the intentional targeting of a different country’s civilians by a militant group in an attempt to coerce the civilian population and their government to a particular political outcome? That’s the FBI definition of terrorism.
Unfortunately, there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law as terrorism is in many ways a political term. However, regardless of the inability to collectively define terrorism, civilians are still not allowed to be the intended target of military violence.
In an american led attempt to stem the violence, Israeli leadership met with the PLO to negotiate a solution for a palestinian state in the west bank and gaza. The outcome was the Oslo Accords which was an interim agreement to establish PLO sovereignty over specific territories as the Palestinian Authority or PA. These territories were divided based on population and civilian/military control status.
Pneumonic | Area | Population (Majority) | Civil Control | Security Control | Percentage of Land |
Atah | A | Palestinian Civilian Centers | PA | PA | 3% |
B’Yachad | B | Lands surrounding major Palestinian Civilian Centers | PA | IDF | 23-25% |
Kolanu | C | Israeli Citizens | IDF | IDF | 72-74% |
The Oslo Accords were an intermediate agreement that was intended to have a follow up agreement. However, due to the assassination of Rabin in 1995 and the violence of the second intifada, the follow up agreement never came to be. If this topic is of particular interest to you, research about the Taba Conference of 2001.
The Second Intifada was particularly bloody for Israelis and led to civilians demanding their government to act to protect them from the violent terrorists entering Israel unobstructed from the West Bank. The solution was to build a security barrier to prevent the continued onslaught. Upon completion of the barrier, terrorist attacks originating from the west bank into sovereign Israeli territory dropped by over 90%. Many critics of the security barrier cite the 4th Geneva convention and the principle of the freedom of movement of civilians. However, interestingly enough, it is the same fourth geneva convention that states in Article 27:
“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honor, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to the protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.”
So even if the 4th Geneva convention was applicable to the West Bank, which Israel claims it not to be, then Israel would still be justified under international law to build a security barrier to protect its civilians despite the impact on the freedom of movement.
This responsibility to protect Israeli civilians by the Israeli government cannot negate feelings of discrimination and oppression felt by Palestinians living in the West Bank. This feeling also does not constitute apartheid which is a legally defined term in the Rome Statute of the ICC:
“(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systemic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;”
Technically, with the acceptance of Oslo and the creation of de facto borders of a Palestinian territory where the PA is the civil authority over the palestinians living in areas A and B, that their difference in rights is due to a difference in government status not because of a racial discrimination scheme. Additionally, in regards to Area C, where the IDF executes civilian government, the Palestinians are governed according to IHL and the Israeli civilians are governed according to Israeli law. This separate system of courts and governance is one of the most legitimate things someone that is anti-Israel can cite. However, the alternative solution would be having Israel annex the territory in order to establish sovereignty and giving rights to the Arabs living in Area C, which neither anti-Israel people, nor Palestinians living in Area C, would likely be too happy with.
2005
In 2005, in a last ditch attempt at peace, Ariel Sharon ordered the unilateral disengagement of Israeli forces from Gaza and the complete evacuation of all Israeli towns in the geographical division. In other words, in 2005, the IDF ethnically cleansed all Jews from Gaza.
HAMAS is a palestinian terrorist organization that was established in 1988 as an alternative to Fatah and the PLO which were deemed traitors for their contact with Israel. Article 15 of their original 1988 charter states:
“The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers. This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: “Only now have the Crusades ended.” General Guru stood at Salah el-Din’s grave and said: “We have returned, O Salah el-Din.” Imperialism has helped towards the strengthening of ideological invasion, deepening, and still does, its roots. All this has paved the way towards the loss of Palestine.”
It is worth noting that Hamas revised their charter in 2017 changing every place it says “Jews” to “Zionists” after facing international pressure. However, to quote Elliott Chodoff: “when someone tells you that they want to kill you, believe them”.
In 2007, following Fatah’s failure to claim a majority in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Elections and a Hamas gain of seats of a 74 seat majority, the coalition government that had emerged between Fatah and Hamas after the 2005 presidential election that Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas won, collapsed. This collapse led to a power struggle between Fatah and Hamas that climaxed in the Gaza Civil War’s 2007 Battle of Gaza City, where Hamas assumed full control of governance in the Gaza strip and killed/drove out many Fatah affiliated officials. It is at this point that the Palestinian territories become de facto 2 different states with different governments.
This division of the Palestinian Territories by two warring political factions with different representatives and recognition status by Israel has led to some weird political dynamics that have gotten Israel accused of equally crazy things.
There is another security barrier that surrounds the Gaza strip on the North and East by Israel and on the South by Egypt. When people say that Israel is blockading or occupying Gaza even after 2005, it is due to the belief that this security barrier demonstrates effective control. Remember at the beginning of the trip when we talked about the four types of sub sovereignty that compose sovereignty? Well due to Israel’s control over the movement in and out of two of the 3 borders, and its supervising power at the Egyptian border, that Israel is therefore violating the Interdependence sovereignty of Gaza, or the actual control of movement across the state’s borders.
Thank You
Thank you for being willing to read this multi-part blog post (there will be just 1 more!) 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.