Preparing Our Children to Respond to the Anti-Israel Propaganda on College Campuses Part I
Executive Director at American Friends of Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer
Preparing Our Children to Respond to the Anti-Israel Propaganda on College Campuses Part I
By Alex Grobman, PhD | October 03, 2017
In response to the ubiquitous demonization and delegitimization of Israel on college campuses, day schools, yeshivot and other Jewish institutions conduct classes and tutorials to teach students how to respond to the lies, disinformation and attempts to apply a double standard to the Jewish state. Quite often these programs are called Israel Advocacy, which is a fundamental error.
Instead of trying to create “little Zionists,” students should be encouraged to examine spurious Arab claims by using the same critical thinking skills they employ in their other academic studies. Teachers should allow their students the intellectual and emotional freedom to reach conclusions based on their own analysis. They should be urged to present the conflict as historians do, by constructing their case based on documentation and evidence, and not as polemicists or propagandists.
The first step in this process is to gain a basic knowledge of modern Middle Eastern history and the Israeli/Palestinian Arab conflict. This historical background is a sine qua non—essential in exposing the myths and fabrications leveled against Israel.
A few years ago, I had a discussion with a recent yeshiva high school graduate regarding the Balfour Declaration and Israel’s right to exist. The young man, who would soon matriculate at an elite American university, took great pride in his grasp of the subject. Based on his “astute” insights, he wondered if I could tell he was an active member of J Street. Since his arguments were right out of J Street’s playbook, there was no question which organization had negatively influenced him. Significantly, with all of his presumed knowledge, he had never heard of the San Remo Treaty of April 1920 or the Treaty of Sevres of August 1920.
San Remo Conference April 1920: Where Israel Was Re-Born: “The Magna Carta of the Zionists”
Why is the San Remo Treaty so fundamental to understanding this conflict? The actual decision to confer sovereignty of Palestine without boundary restrictions to the Jewish people was made on April 25, 1920 at the San Remo Conference in San Remo, Italy by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, Britain, France, Italy and Japan. The U.S. as an observer and one of the Allies concurred.
As part of a broad peace agreement, the Council decided that the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 would be incorporated in The Treaty of Peace with Turkey - which gave it the weight of International Law, in which Turkey yielded jurisdiction over Palestine (which they had ruled from 1517 to 1917) and Palestine would be placed under a mandate. Recognition had thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting (regaining possession of their territory) their national home in that country.
As former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold observed, Israel is the only state established whose legitimacy was officially acknowledged by the League of Nations and the UN. The League of Nations Mandate did not grant the Jewish people the rights to establish a national home in Palestine, it simply recognized a pre-existing right that had never been surrendered or forgotten. The Jewish people had been sovereign in their own land for 1,000 years before many were forced into exile. The establishment of the state of Israel did not represent a creation ex nihilo. These rights were upheld by the UN under Article 80 of the UN Charter after the UN replaced the League of Nations.
Exposing the Myth of Israel’s “Apartheid Wall”
A second step in this educational process is to review the accusations designed to denigrate Israel and evaluate them. Israel’s separation fence has been portrayed as Israel’s “Apartheid Wall,” and compared to the “Berlin Wall,” and is among the most controversial examples.
Predictably, it has generated serious public discussion in Israel, acrimonious opposition from Palestinian Arabs and European governments and criticism from the US.
The Israeli government contends the fence is intended to stop homicide bombings and other acts of terror against her citizens as part of the government’s fundamental responsibility to ensure the safety of her citizens from shootings, booby-rigged vehicles, homicide bombers and the smuggling of weapons and explosives into Israel.
There are a number of questions these allegations raise. What makes the security fence an “Apartheid Wall,” and a “Berlin Wall”? What is apartheid and is Israel an apartheid state? What was the purpose of the Berlin Wall? Is this an accurate comparison?
Is the fence hermetically sealed as is often represented? Can Palestinian Arab students, and those seeking medical assistance and workers and farmers reach the Israeli side of the fence?
Was the fence built as a pretext to annex territory? Has it changed the status of the land? What role has Israel’s Supreme Court played in responding to Palestinian Arab concerns about the areas appropriated to build the fence? How has the fence affected the number of terror attacks launched against Israel from Judea and Samaria?
As part of this inquiry, students should survey the various separation walls that have been constructed since the downfall of the former Soviet Union, including those in Belfast, Northern Ireland and São Paulo, Brazil, and between the U.S and Mexico, India and Pakistan, Greece and Turkey, South Korea and North Korea, Botswana and Zimbabwe and Morocco and Western Sahara. Saudi Arabia built a highly sophisticated wall to protect itself from ISIS, and another one to protect the country from Yemen.
Answering these questions and investigating how some countries address security threats by erecting barriers allows students to place Israel’s security fence in perspective. Using the same approach in analyzing other attacks against Israel enables students to reach their own conclusions based on substantiated proof, and not opinion.
A Final Thought
David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, once warned, “Nothing is more dangerous for Zionism than the fatalistic belief in the eternity of Israel.” We owe it to our children to provide them with the knowledge and tools to discern fact from fiction in dealing with this intractable conflict.
By Alex Grobman, PhD
Alex Grobman, a Hebrew University-trained historian, has written extensively on the Palestinian Arab conflict. He is a member of the Council of Scholars for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), and a member of the Advisory Board of The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). He has trained students how to respond to Arab propaganda on American campuses.
Preparing Our Students to Respond to the Anti-Israel Propaganda on Campus Part II
Part II
In “Rhetoric,” Aristotle postulated that “Men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth.” Whether this hypothesis is correct or questionable is open to debate. With regard to the Palestinian Arab/Israeli conflict, this natural instinct appears to be dormant or non-existent among many in the West and Israel, and especially in the media.
As with the security fence, Israel’s checkpoints and crossings are subject to an unrelenting barrage of acrimonious criticism. The media, which frequently focuses on anything critical of Israel, delights in reporting alleged incidents of abuse and humiliation as Palestinian Arabs navigate these barriers to enter Israel for work, medical treatment or other activities.
Members of Israeli-based MachsomWatch, a volunteer organization of Israeli women who are peace activists, add to this hostile coverage through their reports about the conduct of soldiers and policemen at checkpoints in Judea and Samaria. The organization’s avowed goal is “to influence public opinion in Israel and throughout the world by recording and authenticating the impossible conditions faced by the Palestinians under Israeli occupation.”
These inflammatory allegations raise a number of questions: Do these reports provide a balanced view of what transpires at the checkpoints on a daily basis or are they skewed to advance a particular political agenda? Are perspective and context absent from these stories? Why are the checkpoints and crossing needed at all? For many years, Palestinian Arabs ostensibly enjoyed unrestricted access to travel throughout Israel. Hundreds of thousands were employed in Israel without having to submit to security checks before entering the country. What precipitated this change? Is there difference a between “crossings” and “checkpoints”? Are they similar in any way to the border crossing between the US, Canada and Mexico?
One should note, security checks are not limited to Palestinian Arabs alone. Anyone wishing to enter an Israeli restaurant, mall, supermarket, theater, school, museum, sporting event or any other public venue is subject to a security inspection.
What is the procedure for Palestinian Arabs to obtain permission from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) to enter Israel? Why must they first apply to a Palestinian Authority liaison officer who then contacts the Israeli authorities? How do the 31 COGAT offices in Judea and Samaria facilitate this process? The two most requested permits are humanitarian and commercial. How many requests are made each month? How difficult is it to gain authorization?
According to the IDF, each person at a crossing must walk through a metal detector and all items must be scanned through an X-ray machine, just as every Israeli citizen or tourist must do at Israel’s train stations. At this point, there is no physical contact with soldiers. Each individual’s card is reviewed by a COGAT official who takes a digital fingerprint scan. A soldier then confirms that the permit is valid and authorizes entry.
To leave Israel and return home, the individual simply swipes the magnetic card through a scanner and walks through a turnstile. In 2013, the head of COGAT reported that there were more than 10.9 million entries at all the crossings. Since 2010, this number has been rising steadily, with an 18.3 percent annual increase from 2012.
Any investigation of security checkpoints should include the findings of NGO Monitor about MachsomWatch. NGO Monitor, which documents questionable funding and actions of many Israeli NGOs, reported that the organization “received NIS 1,774,393 from foreign governmental bodies between the years 2012-2015… including Norway, Switzerland, New Israel Fund (NIF), Open Society Foundations and others.”
Why do European countries provide this assistance? According to NGO Monitor, European governments have never explained the reason for “their disproportionate funding for NGO projects in Israel.” In theory, the money is to be used to promote human rights agendas. The problem is that these funds are used “to lobby governments in Europe and North America, and to oppose legislation and influence other domestic issues in Israel.”
Though MachsomWatch is highly critical of Israeli security personnel, do they attempt to document how often the checkpoints have been exploited to smuggle terrorists, weapons, suicide vests and other munitions in ambulances, computers and other devices and hidden on women?
A Final Thought
Israelis and Palestinian Arabs find the checkpoints abhorrent and unacceptable. While serving as a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post, Molly Moore described the frustration of many IDF solders manning checkpoints. “Most soldiers prefer to be under fire than at those roadblocks,” said Staff Sgt. Ran Ridnick, 21, a marksman for the Israeli military’s elite 202nd Paratroop Battalion who spent six months at the Hawara checkpoint. “The mission is dreadful... It tears you apart.”
When will the checkpoints be dismantled? As soon Palestinian Arabs stop trying to murder Israeli civilians. It is that simple.
By Alex Grobman, PhD
Alex Grobman, a Hebrew University-trained historian, has written extensively on the Palestinian Arab conflict. He is a member of the Council of Scholars for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), and a member of the Advisory Board of The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). He has trained students how to respond to Arab propaganda on American campuses. One student, who worked with him for three years became president of Harvard Students for Israel.
Preparing Our Children to Respond to the Anti-Israel Propaganda on College Campuses Part III
Part III
“Perception truly is now reality, and our enemies know it,” asserts Steve Fondacaro, an American military expert. Israel and the West are engaged in what is “fundamentally an information fight,” in which Palestinian Arabs have mastered the technique of controlling the propaganda narrative. Their success has been so pervasive in crafting the language we use in discussing the conflict, we often are not even aware of how inadvertently we advance their agenda.
Soviet ideology is responsible for helping shape Palestinian Arab strategy, notes historian Joel Fishman. Words are designed to elicit hatred, disgust and contempt. Terms like racist, fascist, oppressor, apartheid nation, occupier, usurpers of Arab lands, and Israel as the obstacle to peace are accepted by large segments in the West, particularly in Europe, as an accurate description of the Jewish state.
Israel’s legitimacy is further undermined by the process of “reversal of culpability,” which uses false indictments and historical analogies. Goliath becomes David, and David becomes Goliath. Israelis are accused of committing “genocide,” thus “Israel is doing to the Arab-Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews.”
This pernicious labeling is also used by “self-hating Jews,” and Jews highly critical of Israel. In this toxic environment, even staunch supporters of Israel err in the terms they use. Here are just a few examples:
West Bank: For thousands of years, the area was recognized as Judea and Samaria, part of the Jewish people’s ancestral heartland. On April 24, 1950, Jordan annexed its 2,270 square miles, and the West Bank became the name used to describe the territory. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized this changed status. During the Six Day War in 1967, Jordan lost control of Judea and Samaria.
Using the term West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria, obscures the ancient historical and religious connection of the Jews to this area, and implies that Jordan has the legitimate right to rule the region. Judea’s boundaries, which are defined in The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus, was part of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, the Southern Kingdom. Samaria was part of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, the Northern Kingdom.
A review of Jewish religious and secular sources will provide a profound appreciation for the importance and centrality of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people.
Legally, the territory remains disputed. When a peace agreement is reached notes Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former Dean of Yale Law School, Israel must withdraw her “armed forces ‘from territories’ she occupied during the Six-Day War—‘not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”
This has not stopped resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories, which are defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly.
Settlers and Settlements:
David Friedman, the American Ambassador to Israel, recently said, “They (Israelis) are only occupying 2 percent of the West Bank.”
If the Jews have returned to Judea and Samaria, how can they be called settlers and portrayed as occupiers? And why are their communities called settlements?
Identifying them as settlements instead of Jewish communities, reinforces the Arab position that they are temporary residences that are illegal and must be vacated before any peace agreement can be reached.
Author Hillel Halkin asks what if every Israel government since 1967 had prohibited Jews from living in Judea and Samaria until a peace agreement had been signed. In the interim, the land would have been held in escrow until the Palestinian Arabs ceased fighting, and then the Israelis would give them the land, which would which then be free of Jews.
Would this have accelerated peace negotiations or tempered the PLO’s determination to obliterate the Jewish state? This would simply have enabled the Palestinian Arabs to pursue their objective of destroying Israel. If they succeeded, they would say “all to the better.” If not, they would respond “what did we lose?” Furthermore, it is quite offensive to tell Jews they can live in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, New York, Moscow, Mexico City or Buenos Aires, yet are prohibited from living in Judea and Samaria — the areas in the land of Israel most linked to the Bible, Jewish memory and history.
The entire concept itself destroys the canard that the Jews are the new Nazis. It was the Nazis who birthed the modern notion of ethnic cleansing, first by driving populations from their homes and then, ultimately murdering as many millions as they could. Barring Jews from their ancestral homelands, driving them from their current homes in concert with the avowed Palestinian Arab objective of killing them wherever they are, is the actual resurrection of the Nazi program, albeit in a new set of hands. Those hands are most assuredly not Jewish.
Douglas Feith, an attorney who served as a Middle East Specialist on the National Security Council Staff during the Reagan Administration, asserts that the Jewish claims to exert sovereignty in any part the land of Israel is based on the Jewish presence on the land for millennia. Land claims founded on historical presence “are not only legally valid, they are the strongest claims, and one might argue, the only valid claims Jews have to exercise sovereignty” throughout Palestine.
For those eager to learn more about Israel’s legal rights, please read Kontorovich, Eugene, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories” (September 7, 2016). Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 16-20. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2835908 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2835908. Kontorovich, a law professor at Northwestern University is a leading scholar on the subject.
Give Them Back the Land: As If We Are Occupiers
Frequently one hears “if the Arabs agree to cease trying to destroy Israel, we will give back the land to them.” In other words, it is Arab land which does not belong to the Jews. This regretful and damaging mistake confirms Arab claims that they are the indigenous inhabitants of the land. But are they?
A study of Jewish, Arab and British policies conducted by the Esco Foundation for Palestine in 1947 concluded: “It is highly improbable that any but a small part of the present Arab population of Palestine is descended from the ancient inhabitants of the land.” Aside from those brought to Palestine through conquest, “Palestine, like Syria, has been from time immemorial been peopled by the drifting populations of Arabia, and to some extent by the backwash of its harbors.”
A Final Thought: Moshe Arens, who served as Israeli defense and foreign minister, said there are “So many reasons for abandoning Judea and Samaria, but If you believe in the justice of Israel’s cause, are concerned for the security of the State of Israel, and are convinced that Jews and Arabs can live together in a democratic society, you will dismiss them all.”
By Alex Grobman, PhD
No comments:
Post a Comment