DISPUTED TERRITORIES:

Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Introduction

In 1967, Israel fought a desperate war of self-defense and despite dire
odds, won. As a result, the Jewish State not only survived, it also came
into possession of additional lands, including territory that is of vital
importance to its security.


The Palestinians and their supporters are attempting to promote their cause
by channeling every event through the prism of the disputed territories. In
doing so, they have succeeded in diverting the discussion away from the
relevant facts, rewriting or ignoring history and reinventing international
law to suit their aims. These facts must not be forgotten.



Facts

Disputed, not "Occupied", Territory

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only
be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories
captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West
Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty
of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered
occupied territories.

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a
continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of
Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.

Legality of Israel's Presence in the Territories

Despite persistent claims by the Palestinians and their supporters,
occupation is not, in and of itself, illegal. It does not violate
international law.

Israel's presence in the territories began in 1967 as a direct result of the
aggressive actions of Israel's neighbors that forced Israel into a war of
self-defense.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted following the Six Day
War, places obligations on both sides (as does Resolution 338, adopted
following the 1973 Yom Kippur War). 242 does not call for unilateral
withdrawal from the territories.

Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories
gained as a result of the 1967 war, as the Arab regimes claim. Instead, the
resolution deliberately restricts itself to calling for Israel's withdrawal
"from territories" while recognizing the right to live within secure and
recognized boundaries.

Terrorism Cannot be Justified

Incessant references by Palestinian spokespersons to "the occupation" are
used to delegitimize not only Israel's presence in the territories, but also
to justify terrorism.

Suicide bombings are a crime against humanity, and no
political goal can ever justify the use of terrorism.

Palestinian terrorism preceded Israel's presence in the territories. Indeed,
the PLO (the Palestinian Liberation Organization) was founded in 1964, three
years before the 1967 Six Day War.

Israel's Pursuit of Peace

Israel, as a democracy, has no desire to control the lives or future of the
Palestinians. Israel - which has made extensive territorial concessions to
the Palestinians since 1993 - has always been willing to make great
sacrifices in the name of peace.


The claim that any occupation - no matter the reasons for its establishment
or its continued existence - is illegal is not consistent with the
principles of international law. Many states hold onto territory taken in a
war - particularly a war ofself-defense - until a peace treaty is negotiated.
Israel has attempted to negotiate a
peaceful resolution to the status of these disputed territories ever since
they came into Israel's possession.

Jews have lived in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza Strip continuously
for 4000 years. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites,
including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob), are located in these areas. Jewish communities grew in Gaza during
the 11th century and other areas, such as Hebron (where Jews lived until
they were massacred in 1929), were inhabited by Jews throughout the four
hundred years of Ottoman rule and much before. Additional Jewish communities
flourished under the British Mandatory administration that replaced the
Ottoman Empire in 1918.

The Palestinians often contend that the Jews are foreign colonizers in
territory to which they had no previous connection. Indeed, much of the Arab
world considers all of Israel - and not just the disputed territories - as a
foreign entity in the region. Such claims disregard the continuous ties of
the Jewish people with their age-old homeland and the deep bond of the
people of Israel to its land, both in biblical and later periods.



"
The Arab threats to destroy Israel in the period preceding the war were made
when Israel did not control the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Threat to Israel's Existence

In its pre-1967 boundaries, Israel was only 15 kilometers (9 miles) wide at
some
places. The armies of Israel's enemies in the West Bank and Gaza were
stationed a mere 18 km. (11 miles) from Tel Aviv, 35 km. (21 miles) from
Haifa, 11 km. (7 miles) from Ashkelon and only meters from Israeli
neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

Hopes for Peace

When the Six Day War ended, Israelis believed that a new era was beginning,
one that would bring peace to the region. Hoping to translate military gains
into a permanent peace, Israel sent out a clear message that it would
exchange almost all the territory gained in the war for peace with its
neighbors.

Furthermore, Israel gave strong indications of its deep desire to negotiate
a solution, including through territorial compromise, by deciding not to
annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip. This is important evidence of Israel's
intent given both the strategic depth these areas offered and the Jewish
people's age-old ties to numerous religious and historical sites, especially
in the West Bank.

Arab rejectionism

But Israel's hope for peace was quickly dashed. The Arab states began to
rearm and, at the August 1967 Arab League meeting in the Sudan, adopted as
their political position "the three nos," principles by which the Arab
states were to abide, namely, "no peace with Israel, no recognition of
Israel, no negotiations with it." The Khartoum Summit's hard-line position
forestalled all chances for peace for years. As Israel's then Foreign
Minister Abba Eban said, "This is the first war in history which has ended
with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for
unconditional surrender."


The claim that "the occupation" caused the wave of violence and terrorism
that began in September 2000 soon become the central Palestinian theme. The
methodology of Palestinian spokespersons was simple: Answer every question
with "the occupation is responsible," say "the occupation caused it" after
every act of terrorism. "Occupation" provided them with a simple buzzword
that could be used to condemn Israel at every turn and to absolve the
Palestinians of responsibility for their every action. But repeating a lie
hundreds of times does not make it true.

Palestinian attempts to excuse terrorism by blaming it on "the occupation"
are not only morally repugnant, they attempt to corrode the precept that
suicide bombings are a crime against humanity. To accept the lie that "the
occupation" caused the terrorism helps encourage terrorism itself, while
condoning its use is not only immoral but contributes to the perpetuation of
the conflict.

The Roots of Palestinian Terrorism

It is not Israel's presence in the territories that caused terrorism.
Rather, the violence is fostered by the hatred of Israel, and nurtured by
incessant incitement from Palestinian officials and religious leaders.

It should be remembered that Palestinian terrorism predates Israel's
presence in the territories. Not only were there endless terrorist attacks
on Israeli civilians during the two decades that preceded the Six Day War,
they even occurred prior to the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel.

The claim that the 1967 "occupation" of the territories caused Palestinian
terrorism is particularly specious coming from PLO members, as the Palestine
Liberation Organization was created in 1964, three years before the Six Day
War, when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under Israeli rule.

Terrorism vs. Efforts for Peace

History demonstrates that Palestinian terrorism is not caused by frustration
or the absence of hope for a peaceful solution. Horrific waves of attacks
have occurred during periods of major advances in the peace process.
Terrorist strikes have often peaked during those times - such as the
mid-1990s - when the process has been at its most active and thereby most
likely to bring an end to the so-called "occupation."

Claims that Israel's presence in the territories causes terrorism are
misleading, as they ignore the history of terrorist attacks against Israel
and the countless Israeli offers of peace that were rejected by the
Palestinians.

The Palestinians Reject Peace at Camp David


In July 2000, the United States hosted a Middle East peace summit designed
to address the remaining final-status issues of the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process. Israel's willingness to make unprecedented compromises for
peace was based on the conviction that only a negotiated settlement could
resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership was not willing to end the
conflict. Not only was it unwilling to compromise on any of the difficult
and complicated issues, it was not prepared to present any reasonable
proposals of its own.

International Criticism of the Palestinians

The Palestinian leadership came under international criticism for the
failure of the Camp David summit, particularly after the US blamed the
Palestinians directly. The international community could not comprehend the
Palestinians' reasons for rejecting a most sweeping peace offer, that would
have given the Palestinians virtually all that they had been ostensibly
demanding.

Violence as a Strategy

After "analyzing the political positions following the Camp David summit,
and in accordance with what brother Abu Amar [Arafat] said, it became clear
to the Fatah movement that the next stage necessitates preparation for
confrontation."
    Fatah Central Committee member Sakhr Habash told the PA daily
    newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida on 7 December 2000.

"The only way to impose our conditions is inevitably through our blood...the
power of the intifada is our only weapon. We should not toss this weapon
away until the Arab emergency summit is convened and until we gain
international protection."
    Hassan al-Kashef, Director-General of the PA Ministry of Information,
    wrote in his Al-Ayyam column of 3 October 2000

The Palestinian leadership realized that it must act in order to regain
international support. The Palestinians adopted a strategy whereby violence
would be the primary instrument to divert the world's attention away from
Palestinian intransigence at Camp David and put pressure on Israel. The
Palestinians hoped that the resulting bloodshed would restore their image as
victims and bolster their calls for international intervention, leading to a
unilateral Israeli withdrawal while the conflict continues.

A Fundamental Breach

The Palestinian decision to use violence contradicted two core commitments
that they made prior to Oslo. Yasser Arafat broke his own pledge by which
"the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" and the
PLO commits itself "to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two
sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status
will be resolved through negotiations." These two core commitments,
stipulated in Arafat's 9 September 1993 letter to the late Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, were the basis of Rabin's decision to sign the Oslo Accords.
===

September 9, 1993

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history
of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the
following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and
security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all
outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through
negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles
constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful
coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and
stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other
acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and
personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and
discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of
Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the
Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions
of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter
are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to
submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary
changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
====


The Peace Process

The Palestinian Path of Violence

Since before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and to this
day, the Palestinians have refused to take advantage of the many
opportunities to reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict. Instead, the
Palestinian leadership chose the path of violence, rejecting Israel's every
offer of peace. The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an
opportunity, as the late Foreign Minister Abba Eban said.

The Road to Peace

The pattern of Israeli appeals for peace being met with Arab rejection and
hostile actions continued unabated for more than a decade after the 1967
war. This was first broken in November 1977, when Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat visited Jerusalem. The subsequent negotiations resulted in the Camp
David Accords of September 1978 and the March 1979 peace treaty between
Egypt and Israel. Israel pulled out of the entire Sinai Peninsula. The
thirty-year-old state of war between the two countries ended and
internationally recognized boundaries were established. It should be noted
that every time Israel met an Arab leader, like President Sadat of Egypt and
King Hussein of Jordan, who were ready to make peace and who spoke the
language of peace to their own people, Israel made peace with them.

The Camp David Accords of 1978 contained a framework for establishing a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a detailed proposal for
self-government for Fthe Palestinians in the territories as a stipulated
prelude to negotiations over the final status of the territories. Sadly, the
Palestinians, supported by other Arab leaders, rejected this opportunity.
This Palestinian intransigence persisted for some time despite the model of
peaceful resolution represented by the Israeli-Egyptian treaty and despite
the numerous initiatives put forward by Israel and others.

Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Gulf War and the subsequent
changes in the international system and the Middle East did the Palestinians
offer to abandon violence and negotiate peace with Israel. In 1991 - 43
years after the establishment of the State of Israel - the Palestinians
finally agreed to join the peace process and participate in the 1991 Madrid
Peace Conference and the 1993 Oslo Accords. Sadly, the Palestinian
leadership has not lived up to its commitments to refrain from terror,
destroy the terrorist infrastructure and end the incessant incitement to
hatred and violence. On the contrary, the Palestinian Authority has aided,
abetted and fomented terrorism. Forces directly accountable to Arafat have
perpetrated countless acts of terrorism. Palestinian Authority-controlled
media has incited the terrorism which has taken so many innocent lives and
has greatly damaged the prospects for achieving a negotiated peace.

Israel's Willingness to Compromise

The disputed status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, combined with the
refusal of the Palestinians to sign peace agreements with Israel that would
define the final borders, means that the precise status of the territories
has yet to be determined. And in the negotiations to determine the future
status of these disputed territories, Israel's legitimate claims, and not
just the Palestinian positions, must be taken into account.

Despite the Jewish people's historic and religious connection to these
territories, in order to achieve peace Israel has always been willing to
compromise. Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians in the
territories and Israel's yearning for peace is so strong that all Israeli
governments have been willing to make major sacrifices to achieve this goal.
Still, the ongoing terrorism has caused many Israelis to doubt whether the
Palestinians are truly interested in peace and whether some of the
concessions that Israel was prepared to make two years ago are possible.

For negotiations to succeed, a responsible and moderate Palestinian
leadership must emerge, one that has abandoned for all time the goal of
destroying Israel and one that actively fights terrorism. Until that
happens, Palestinian terrorism will continue to destroy innocent lives and
Palestinian extremism will undermine the chance of peace for both
Palestinians and Israelis.

NOT an "occupation"

Top of page