The Current Situation in Israel - Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (Updated April 2001)
The Electronic Intifada responds to the FAQ:
- Who is responsible for the outbreak of violence?
- Why is this violence occurring?
- Are violence and peace talks compatible?
- Is the IDF using excessive force in its response to the violence?
- Why are there more Palestinian casualties than Israeli casualties?
- Why are Palestinian children being wounded in the conflict?
- What has happened to Jewish and Muslim holy sites?
- What is Israel's position regarding the Palestinian claim of a 'right of return'?
- What is Israel's position with regard to the Jewish settlements in the territories?
- What is Israel's position on a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?
- What is the situation in Israel today?
- How does Israel regard the severing of relations by Morocco, Tunisia and Oman?
- What is Israel doing about attacks on Gilo and other Jerusalem neighborhoods?
- How are the Palestinians faring economically?
- And what about cyber-terrorism?
- What about the outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide?
1. Who is responsible for the outbreak of violence?
A simple, compelling and important truth has somehow been lost in the recent turmoil enveloping the Middle East. The events recently witnessed in our region are the result of a clear Palestinian decision to pursue violence as a political tool.
While the Israeli government and people yearn for this violence to end, its does not appear that the Palestinians share this aspiration.
Israel seeks to resolve its differences with the Palestinians at the negotiating table, while Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have chosen ongoing, violent confrontation.
Yasser Arafat must be held accountable for the wave of violence sweeping through the territories.
What the Palestinians have termed 'intifada' (uprising) is no more than a calculated, cynical effort by Arafat to achieve through violence the maximalist political aims which he failed to attain through negotiations.
Although many would have us believe otherwise, what we are witnessing is a deliberate choice by the Palestinian leadership to pursue violence rather than negotiation.
Recently, the Palestinian media has clearly confirmed this to be the truth. On December 6, 2000, the semi-official daily Al-Ayyam reported as follows:
"Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications, Imad Al-Falouji, confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself.
Mr. Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this intifada as a culminating stage to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."
Similar statements have been made by other Palestinian officials, in the Palestinian and Arab press and media.
The current confrontation was deliberately initiated, and continues to be nurtured, by the Palestinian leadership as a strategic choice on their part.
This was true from the earliest days of the crisis, and it remains true today.
To that end, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have:
- Used official Palestinian media to incite their people to violence against Israel and Israelis.
- Authorized the Fatah militia - the Tanzim - to fire on Israeli civilians and soldiers, with weapons supplied by the Palestinian Authority.
- Released dozens of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists from Palestinian prisons, signaling to these organizations that they have a green light to launch attacks against innocent Israeli citizens.
Arafat's policies have thus led to a series of bloody terrorist attacks, including car bomb explosions in Israeli cities, drive-by shootings, and road side ambushes targeting civilian vehicles, including school buses and family cars.
A simple, compelling and important truth has somehow been lost in the recent turmoil enveloping the Middle East. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs's fact sheet The Current Situation in Israel - Answers to Frequently Asked Questions claims that "the Israeli government and people desperately yearn for this violence to end, while [their] Palestinian neighbors do not."
However, in a Los Angeles Times column published on 13 October 2000, Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote:
"The preponderance of responsibility lies with Israel and with an international media that continue to obscure the basic realities facing the Palestinian people, and continues to treat the death of Israeli soldiers enforcing a brutal occupation as somehow more outrageous and barbarous than the killing of many times as many Palestinian teenagers who were resisting the occupation."The violence has been largely one-sided. UN Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000) of 7 October 2000 condemned Israel's:
"excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life."Israel has repeatedly used automatic weapons, firing high-velocity fragmenting ammunition, and tank/helicopter-mounted heavy machine guns firing explosive rounds against unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. In addition, Israel has been using helicopter gunships and tanks to fire missiles and shells directly into heavily populated Palestinian civilian areas. The Apache attack helicopters used were supplied by the US Government for combat situations, not for civilian riot control.
It is the use of such weapons -- virtually unheard of in civilized countries for suppressing demonstrations and low intensity conflict -- that has caused serious injury to between 12 ,000 and 15,000 Palestinians, about 1,500 of whom have been permanently crippled. For more information, see the excellent investigative article, "Shoot to maim: Israel's Favored Ammo is Crippling a Generation of Young Palestinians," by Lamis Andoni & Sandy Tolan, The Village Voice, February 21, 2001.
Israel's 33-year-old military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip is the all-encompassing violent and unjust context of the current uprising. For 33 years, Israel has refused to live up to its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, which includes ending the military occupation by withdrawing to within its 1967 borders, even though its right to live in peace and in secure borders has been repeatedly recognized by the Palestinians.
Regarding "incitement", the Israeli government and media have done some spectacular inciting of their own in the last several months, this document being just one example.
Regarding the Tanzim organisation, many of its members are also members of the Palestinian security and other official organs. Ironically, the reason they have guns at all is because Israel gave them to the Palestinian Authority, and where non-registered guns exist, these streamed into the autonomous areas following the various redeployments, smuggled by Israelis wanting to make a profit from the new market.
As for the release of "terrorists", Palestinian and international human rights organisations had been calling for years for the release of many of these jailed Islamic activists in Palestinian Authority detention, because most were not charged, tried, or convicted. Most were in jail as bargaining chips to satisfy Israel, who showed scant regard for their legal rights.
Claiming that Arafat or the Palestinian Authority is responsible for the current popular uprising (and attempting to support this claim by citing patently bogus boasts by the self-aggrandising Palestinian minister Imad Falouji, which he later recanted) does not address the root of the problem. There has been a continuation and, in some cases, deterioration of human rights indicators on the ground since the 1993 Oslo accords as a direct result of the continuation of the Israeli military occupation and its accompanying repression of the Palestinian people who, ironically, overwhelmingly greeted the Oslo accords and subsequent redeployments with joy. For more information see "How Oslo promoted human rights violations," by Laurie King-Irani, on this site.
2. Why is this violence occurring?
Contrary to what has been claimed in various circles, the visit of then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount in late September did not cause the violence. It was merely a pretext to launch this premeditated campaign.
Indeed, the present wave of disturbances dates back to mid-September, even before the Sharon visit, when firebombs and rocks were thrown at Israeli positions at the Netzarim junction in Gaza.
This was followed shortly thereafter by the killing of an Israeli soldier by a roadside bomb, at the same junction, on September 27.
Two days later, an Israeli police officer was murdered by a Palestinian policeman who had served with him on a joint patrol.
However, the roots of the current violence stem back to the July Camp David summit less than three months earlier, when Arafat clearly demonstrated his rejection of balanced compromise by dismissing all the proposals advanced by the U.S. government.
Israel, for its part, was willing to consider these proposals. Consequently, then-President Clinton placed the blame for failure of the talks squarely at Arafat's feet.
It is no coincidence that the violence began at a time when Israel was expressing its willingness to make unprecedented, far-reaching compromises in order to reach a workable, enduring agreement.
Arafat was given a real opportunity to achieve a resolution through negotiations and compromise, and to bring tangible, considerable benefits to the Palestinian people.
However, Israel's olive branch was met with a hail of gunfire, rocks and firebombs.
Rather than risk being labeled as weak by Palestinian extremists opposed to any form of compromise or conciliation with Israel, Arafat preferred to cast himself as a relentless revolutionary.
Consequently, he opted to use violence as a negotiating tool.
On 19 October 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, meeting in an emergency session, adopted a resolution titled, "Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel," which condemned:
"the provocative visit to Al-Haram al-Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians."Sharon's visit to the third holiest site in Islam, guarded by -- according to the most conservative reports -- 1,000 armed Israeli soldiers, was overtly designed to demonstrate Israel's "sovereignty" over Jerusalem, especially over the Al-Haram Ash-Sharif (which most Israelis call "the Temple Mount") and provoke an angry response. However, at a deeper level, current Palestinian protests reflect years of mounting Palestinian frustration, rage and despair over the failure of the "peace process" to address their basic human and national rights.
Police Minister Ben-Ami publicly approved of the Israeli army's shooting of Palestinian demonstrators following Sharon's visit . Speaking at a press conference for foreign journalists on 1 October 2000 in Tel Aviv, Ben Ami commented:
"As I said before, we cannot give in to violence [...] We are not going to be intimidated by stones thrown at our civilians and at our security forces."Later, making clear that Israel's sovereignty was being demonstrated by Sharon's visit, he stated:
"We are a sovereign government, and Jerusalem is our sovereign capital. This is something we need to make clear."According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem:
"statements of this kind raise the suspicion that the manner in which the police decided to act [...] did not result only from the desire to preserve public order and protect the police and the worshipers at the Western Wall, but also, and possibly primarily, from the desire to demonstrate sovereignty and Israel's control over the Temple Mount area, in blatant disregard for the lives and welfare of the Palestinians"The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that:
[See B'Tselem's report, Events on the Temple Mount - 29 September 2000]
"today's events stem back to the July Camp David summit less than three months earlier, when Arafat clearly demonstrated his rejection of balanced compromise by dismissing all the proposals advanced by the U.S. government."Yet proposals put forward by Israel and the United States at Camp David fell far short of implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), and thus would have allowed Israel to retain key parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the Old City, while completely side-stepping the Palestinian refugees' legally recognised right of return.
3. Are violence and peace talks compatible?
Since the start of the Israeli-PLO negotiations more than seven years ago, Israel has gone far in addressing Palestinian national aspirations in the West Bank and Gaza.
On the basis of Arafat's pledge of 1993 to abandon terrorism and commit to a negotiated solution, Israel negotiated the establishment of an elected Palestinian Authority, which has gradually expanded its jurisdiction and authorities, and now administers 97% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.
But Israel did not stop there. The Israeli government made known to the Palestinians, at the Camp David Summit and now publicly, its willingness to move forward in the peace negotiations, and to make far-reaching political, historic and strategic compromises in order to achieve peace.
However, despite these compromises, when it became clear to the Palestinian leadership that Israel could not fulfill every Palestinian demand, and that Israel also has aspirations and interests which need to be addressed through reciprocal compromise, they chose to break off the negotiations and to re-embark upon the path of violence, which they had pledged to abandon.
From Israel's perspective, ending what the Palestinians view as 'occupation' or a 'denial of rights' is not the issue of contention.
For Israel, the core issue now is the Palestinian violation of the bedrock principle of the peace process - that the solution must be predicated upon compromise rather than intractability, and upon negotiation rather than violence.
The conduct of peace negotiations calls for tranquility.
For this reason, the Israeli government has decided that the first order of business in any contacts with the Palestinians will be ending the violence.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions the Israeli government's "willingness to move forward in the peace negotiations." Again, the Oslo "peace process" did not and has not brought peace to the Palestinians by any stretch of the imagination.
Although roughly 97 percent of the Palestinians live in Palestinian autonomous areas, areas under full Palestinian autonomy represent only 40 percent of the Gaza Strip and 17.2 percent of the West Bank [Source: PASSIA]. These areas are disparate and further fragmented by Israeli settler bypass roads which are often used to seal off Palestinian towns from one another. The lack of freedom of movement and collective punishment achieved by sealing these areas, preventing movement between Palestinian population areas -- not known before Oslo -- quickly marred the "peace process" for Palestinians.
The current uprising is a direct result of the continuation of Israel's military occupation following the 1993 Oslo signing, which saw seven years of further Israeli repression, including home demolitions, land confiscation, settlement expansion, agricultural destruction, mass arrests, torture, unprecedented closures of Palestinian towns, and the shooting of unarmed demonstrators in non-life-threatening situations. This was the real "fuel" for the uprising -- a legacy of human rights violations, a disregard of international law, and the daily indignities visited upon the Palestinian people (For more information, see the article, "How Oslo promoted human rights violations," by Laurie King-Irani). All peoples have an absolute right to resist occupation, especially by demonstrating on behalf of their human and national rights.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that "the Israeli government has made far-reaching political, historic and strategic compromises," but Israel's various Oslo accords and verbal proposals have consistently avoided most of Israel's most important obligations under international law, and are seen by Palestinians as a non-starter.
By refusing to live up to its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), by withdrawing from all the occupied territories or allowing the refugees to finally go home, it is Israel which has prolonged the conflict and blocked the only viable solution.
The Palestinian people can hardly be expected to simply accept a status quo based on the ongoing denial of their most basic human and national rights, with no apparent end in sight.
This has always been the case.
4. Is the IDF using excessive force in its response to the violence?
The oft-repeated charge that Israel has used excessive force against innocent Palestinian demonstrators is a distortion of the truth.
Virtually every day during the last months, Israeli soldiers and civilians have had to face dozens of organized, violent and life-threatening attacks by Palestinians, only a small percentage of which have been reported in the media.
These attacks have included violent riots, gunfire directed at residential neighborhoods, firebombings, roadside charges and ambushes, suicide bombers and car bombs in crowded shopping areas.
Under these difficult conditions, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] has acted with the greatest possible restraint, doing its utmost to prevent injury and loss of life.
Israel has no interest in escalating the violence.
On the contrary, Israel believes it is imperative that the violence end so that both parties can return to constructive negotiations.
Israel maintains that a just and sustainable solution can be found only through dialogue, not armed conflict.
However, as long as the violence exists, the IDF has a clear responsibility to protect Israeli citizens and security personnel.
The Israeli government regrets the loss of any life, whether Jewish or Arab, in the present wave of violence.
In the final analysis, however, responsibility for these deaths lies with the Palestinian Authority, which has initiated the violence and stubbornly refuses to bring it to an end.
For example, Arafat refused to sign an agreement which could have brought an end to the violence, even after committing to do so to US Secretary of State Albright, in his meeting with her in Paris on October 4, 2000.
Nor did he live up to his commitments under the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings of October 17, 2000 including his promise to publicly call for an end to the violence, to restore security cooperation and to resume the peace talks.
Indeed, to this day, Arafat has yet to issue a serious public call for an end to the violence.
Israel, on the other hand, has fulfilled all the obligations it took upon itself at Sharm el-Sheikh, including redeployment of IDF forces.
The answer to this question is an unequivocal "yes," according to the United Nations Security Council, other UN bodies, the US State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, to name a few.
Various United Nations bodies have noted and condemned the gravity of Israeli human rights violations during the crisis that erupted on September 28, 2000. UN Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000) of 7 October 2000 condemned Israel's
"excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life."Israel has repeatedly used automatic weapons, firing high-velocity fragmenting ammunition, and tank/helicopter-mounted heavy machine guns firing explosive rounds against unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. In addition, Israel has been using helicopter gunships and tanks to fire missiles and shells directly into heavily populated Palestinian civilian areas. The Apache attack helicopters used were supplied by the US Government for combat situations, not for civilian riot control.
It is the use of such extreme measures, unusual in any democratic country for the suppression of demonstrations, that has resulted in such a high number of Palestinian casualties. The uprising has seen the serious injury of between 12 ,000 and 15,000 Palestinians, about 1,500 of whom have been permanently crippled. For more information, see the excellent investigative article, "Shoot to maim: Israel's Favored Ammo is Crippling a Generation of Young Palestinians," by Lamis Andoni & Sandy Tolan, The Village Voice, February 21, 2001.
Security Council Resolution 1322 further called:
"upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949."On 19 October 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, meeting in an emergency session, adopted a resolution titled, "Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel," which strongly condemned:
"the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians, causing the death of 120 civilians, including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity"and expressed grave concern at:
"the widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity."The Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem concluded:
"Most of those killed or injured were unarmed. These casualties were a direct result of Israel's policy of dispersing demonstrations by unarmed Palestinians. Israel used excessive force in dispersing these demonstrations. The force employed was disproportionate to the danger faced by soldiers and in violation of the Open-Fire Regulations."On 19 October 2000, Amnesty International issued a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories: Excessive use of lethal force, (MDE 15/41/00).
[See B'Tselem's report Illusions of Restraint: Human Rights Violations During the Events in the Occupied Territories, 29 September-2 December 2000, December 2000]
The Amnesty report examines killings of Palestinians caused by the excessive use of force by Israeli security forces and stated:
"In policing the recent demonstrations, the Israeli security forces tended to use military methods rather than policing methods involving the protection of human lives."This brutal approach to suppressing demonstrations was not confined to Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but was also employed against unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel, 13 of whom were killed in cold blood by Israeli security forces in the latter part of 2000.
In February 2000, the US State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices -2000: Occupied territories, which stated:
"In many instances, Israeli security forces used excessive force against demonstrators in contravention of their official rules of engagement."Human Rights Watch's year 2000 report on Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories stated that:
"On September 29, Israeli security forces used lethal force to disperse thousands of Palestinians attending Friday prayers at al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem after some of those present threw stones at police and at Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall. An unusually large number of Palestinians were present at the mosque to protest a visit the previous day by Knesset Member Ariel Sharon, interpreted by many as an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the area. Israeli forces killed five Palestinians and wounded over 200. Violent clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians then spread to other parts of the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel. Within three weeks, more than 120 Palestinians were killed and 4,800 injured, many as result of excessive, often indiscriminate, use of lethal force by Israeli security forces against unarmed civilians. In a number of cases IDF soldiers appeared to target Palestinian medics, at least one of whom was killed and twenty-seven were injured by mid-October. At this writing, the IDF had significantly expanded its use of tanks and helicopter gunships armed with both missiles and medium-caliber machine guns in Palestinian residential areas."Equally grave human rights violations have resulted from the strict Israeli military blockade imposed on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel imposed a closure on the West Bank and Gaza Strip that has isolated most villages from each other as well as from larger population centers where health and educational facilities are located.
5. Why are there more Palestinian casualties than Israeli casualties?
The IDF has done everything in its power to act with restraint in the face of dozens of shootings, violent riots and other life-threatening acts.
Given the widespread violence engulfing the territories, it has been relatively successful in keeping down the number of casualties.
However, the main reason there are fewer Israeli casualties is that fewer Israelis involve themselves in the violence.
Far from being peaceful demonstrations, most Palestinian street protests can best be described as violent riots involving hundreds of Palestinian rioters, some of them armed with lethal weapons, attacking a small handful of Israeli soldiers.
It should be stressed that in order to confront Israeli soldiers, the Palestinian protesters must leave their residential areas and go to the outskirts of their towns and villages.
Only there will they find the Israeli military, manning the positions which were designated to them in the Israeli-Palestinian agreements signed by both parties.
Israel rejects the notion that justice can be determined by the relative number of casualties on either side.
By way of comparison, casualty totals among the allied forces in the Desert Storm campaign in Iraq, and of the NATO forces in Yugoslavia, were much lower than the Iraqi and Serbian casualty totals - which also included innocent civilians tragically caught in the cross-fire of the conflicts.
Yet, unlike the civilian casualties in Iraq and Yugoslavia, Palestinian civilians hurt in the violence have deliberately chosen to involve themselves in initiated confrontations with Israeli armed forces.
CNN reported on 8 March 2001 that, "Of the 465 people who have died in the violence, Israeli officials say that 62 were Israeli Jews, 13 were Israeli Arabs [Palestinians living inside the 1948 borders of Israel] and one was a German citizen living in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society says that 380 Palestinians have been killed."
The numbers speak for themselves. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reverses truth when it claims that "the IDF has done everything in its power to act with restraint in the face of dozens of shootings, violent riots and other life-threatening acts."
The main reason that fewer Israelis are being killed and injured in the current conflict is that the uprising, for the most part, is taking place between Palestinians armed with stones and Israel's occupation army.
Israel possesses the largest and most well-equipped army in the Middle East and has never demonstrated much compunction about shooting Palestinian demonstrators. Put more simply, "rocks versus rifles" isn't really much of a match.
The main reason that fewer Israelis involve themselves in the violence is, quite frankly, because they don't need to. The violence is taking place either in or on the sealed borders of Palestinian population centers, far away from Israeli population areas. This is why Israel can claim in answer to question 11 of its FAQ that "Life in Israel continues without major disruptions."
Israel has no problem with keeping the violence localised far from its population. That, after all, is the essence of a military occupation: that you are occupying someone else's -- not your own -- land.
Israel's occupation army is not "manning the positions which were designated to them in the Israeli-Palestinian agreements signed by both parties" as claimed. They have sealed off and are surrounding Palestinian towns at a level not seen previously.
Bombings in Israeli population centers have little to do with the current uprising and have been an intermittent feature of the conflict since 1993.
Research published by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem asserts that:
"the picture Israeli officials seek to paint is incomplete and tendentious. Israel's policy is directed in large part against the Palestinian civilian population, which is not firing at Israeli civilians or IDF soldiers and is the primary victim of Israel's human rights violations" (From Illusions of Restraint: Human Rights Violations During the Events in the Occupied Territories 29 September-2 December 2000, B'Tselem, December 2000).
The methods that the Israeli occupation forces use in response to what have overwhelmingly been stone-throwing demonstrations were described by Dr. Stephen Miles, former senior officer in the British Police, who came to the Occupied Territories with representatives of Amnesty International. Regarding the Israeli methods in dispersing demonstrations, Dr. Miles stated that:
"These are good tactics if one wants to wipe out an enemy, they are not policing."
("Israel and the Occupied Territories: Excessive Use of Lethal Force, Amnesty International, October 2000, p. 7).
6. Why are Palestinian children being wounded in the conflict?
The Palestinians are sending children to throw rocks and firebombs at Israeli soldiers. On many occasions, the Palestinian Authority has even provided transportation, since the Israeli military positions are located outside population centers, far from the neighborhoods where these children live.
Armed Palestinian policemen and members of the Fatah militia, the Tanzim, often stand just behind this human shield of juvenile "martyrs" and direct gunfire at Israeli soldiers, knowing they can exploit the children's wounds for their propaganda purposes, should Israeli soldiers choose to defend themselves.
The cynical use of children as pawns in the conflict begins in the Palestinian education system.
Palestinian textbooks (many of which have been recently published by the Palestinian Authority itself) openly teach hatred against Israel and Israelis.
Palestinian education television programming glorifies martyrdom in the struggle against Israel.
Palestinian children are trained in the use of firearms in summer camps and in youth groups.
These tactics, which have been extensively documented by the international media, are reprehensible violations of all existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and the exploitation of children in armed conflict is both immoral and illegal, even under Islamic law.
One particularly disturbing aspect of the recent crisis -- beside the high number of Palestinian children shot dead or seriously injured by Israeli troops -- is Israel's attempt to place the blame for the deaths and injuries of these Palestinian children onto Palestinian adults, Palestinian parents in particular. This type of rhetoric, which has absolutely no basis in reality on the ground, was also seen in the past in the South African context, as media analyst Ali Abunimah discovered when delving into coverage of anti-Apartheid demonstrations in the mid-1980s:
From South Africa: "Senior [South African] police officers have complained recently that their efforts to deal with unrest are hampered by the rioters' tactics, including the use of women and children as "human shields," the absence of suspected leaders from the front lines of most protests and the increased attacks on police, particularly the township homes of black policemen" (Los Angeles Times, June 3, 1985).Such attempts at 'blaming the victim' constitute a blatant effort to de-humanize the Palestinian people by implying that Palestinian parents value the lives of their children less than other parents do. Moreover, this rhetoric suggests that the deaths of all Palestinian children occurred as a result of their participation in demonstrations. The Electronic Intifada must point out that the Israeli army spokesman's use of the term 'front line' above implies that Palestinian children are using live ammunition against the occupying army, which they are not.
From Israel: "It's tragic to have a child fall in this violence, but there's no reason for the IDF to fire one shot if there's no violence...All we're trying to say is stop this incessant incitement to violence. We are dealing with a situation in which kids are cynically being used by being put on the front lines where they may be killed, maimed or injured...If a young boy falls, it gives the Palestinians a lot of propaganda points."--Capt. Natan Golan, IDF Spokesman, quoted in the St. Petersburg Times, October 18, 2000.
(Excerpt from "Israel and South Africa in their own words," by Ali Abunimah, abunimah.org.)
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs also fails to acknowledge that many Palestinian children have also been injured and killed by Israeli soldiers while going about their daily activities, such as walking home from school, playing outside, or sitting in their living rooms at home. As of 18 April 2001, 147 Palestinians (18 and under) have been killed out of the total of 445 Palestinians, 33 percent. Of the total number, 76.2 percent were killed by live ammunition, 72 percent of the site of injury was the head or chest, and 48.8 percent of the total deaths happened outside the context of clashes [Source: Palestinians Killed During the Intifada, HDIP, 18 April 2001].
Particularly problematic is that by focusing on Palestinian adults, attention is diverted away from the actual adults who perpetrate these crimes -- the Israeli soldiers who fire the bullets and the Israeli government that sanctions such actions. Consequently, such arguments not only attempt to justify the killing of children, but they allow for the oversight of other concurrent Israeli violations of children's rights resulting from the ongoing Israeli presence in the occupied territories.
According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, children (under the age of 18) constitute 53 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They, like the rest of Palestinian society, are negatively affected, on a daily basis, by the unjust policies of occupation that govern every aspect of their lives.
Consequently, it is hardly a surprise that young Palestinians wish to play a role in the movement to end that injustice, just as youths played a role in the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, or Chinese students participated in actions protesting Chinese government oppression, or American youths joined the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.
Some of the material in this section has been excerpted from Defence for Children International-Palestine Section. For more information about this issue, see Coverage Trends: Palestinian parents blamed for their children's deaths during street clashes, on this website.
7. What has happened to Jewish and Muslim holy sites?
As part of their decision to pursue violence, the Palestinians have also been waging a campaign of destruction and desecration against Jewish holy sites. The most blatant example occurred when a Palestinian mob sacked, demolished and then torched Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus).
This was done just after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the shrine as part of an agreement under which the Palestinian Authority undertook to protect the Jewish holy site from harm.
Following the attack, the Palestinians repaired the site, yet rededicated it as a mosque.
Subsequently, there have been further Palestinian attacks on Jewish synagogues, including the ancient synagogue of Jericho, which was severely damaged in an arson attack, Rachel's tomb, which has been subjected to repeated Palestinian gunfire, and the desecration of a synagogue in the town of Efrat.
Historically, freedom of worship and the sanctity of Islamic, Christian and Jewish sites has been guaranteed, only when these sites have been under Israeli control.
Even during the present wave of violence, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has remained open for Muslim worship, despite the fact that prayers there have become a forum for incitement and rioting.
Muslims have even used the Temple Mount plaza as a location from which to hurl rocks down on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below.
The forced closure this year of Judaism's most revered place of prayer - the Western Wall - on the eve of the Rosh HaShanah High Holiday, as a result of Palestinian stoning of Jewish worshippers, is tantamount to the evacuation of St. Peter's Square on Christmas, or the shutdown of Mecca's Qabaa during the height of the Haj.
And yet various Arab spokesman continue to maintain that the greatest travesty to have occurred, the grossest violation of a sacred site, and the most unforgivable provocation, was that brief visit of an Israeli leader to Judaism's most holy site.
While the destruction of any holy site by anyone is to be condemned, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs fails to mention that Israelis have committed many attacks on both Christian and Muslim holy sites during the current conflict. During the first week of the crisis, 13 Palestinians were killed inside Israel. This was followed by widespread pogrom-like attacks by Jewish civillians inside 1948 Israel on Palestinians, their homes, cars, and religious sites; and by Jewish settlers in many of the West Bank Palestinian towns and cities including Jerusalem. In many cases, these attacks were committed in the presence of Israeli troops, who only intervened when Palestinians tried to defend their homes, cars, or themselves. In many cases, Israeli troops directly participated.
On 8 October 2000, Israeli civilians set fire to a mosque in Tiberias. On 9 October, several attacks by Israeli civilians were reported on churches in Jerusalem. On 10 October, Israeli civilians set fire to both the Al 'Ajami and Hassan Bek mosques in Jaffa. Israeli settlers also set fire to the Latin Patriarchate Church in Beit Hanina, and several more attacks were reported by Israeli civilians on churches in Jerusalem. On 11th October, Israeli civilians destroyed three tombs in an Islamic cemetary in Haifa and set fire to Zaytona Mosque in Ramleh. On 12 October, Israeli settlers set fire to a mosque in Howara, Nablus [Source: Addameer].
According to the Palestinian Council for Justice and Peace, in the past four months, 29 Palestinian mosques and 12 Palestinian churches have been damaged by Israel civilians and military personnel.
Stepping back from the current manifestation of the conflict, the violation of Palestinian religious rights has been taking place on an unprecedented scale since March 1993. Ninety-nine percent of the three million Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories have been prevented by a sham permit system (with denial of permits as standard) from traveling to pray at the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.
Since the uprising, Israel has additionally prevented worshippers under the age of 45 from attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosques on the al-Haram ash-Sharif compound in Jerusalem. The US State Department noted in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices -2000: Occupied territories, that
"Israel's imposition of an internal closure on the West Bank and Gaza [...] and total curfew on many Palestinian towns significantly impeded freedom of worship for Muslims and Christians."
8. What is Israel's position regarding the Palestinian claim of a 'right of return'?
The Palestinian refugee problem did not spring from a vacuum. Its immediate cause was the Arab refusal to accept UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) in 1947 and, their subsequent invasion of the new State of Israel, which initiated the Arab-Israel war of 1948. During that war, many Arabs living in the battle zones abandoned their homes, whether following calls from the Arab leaders, out of fear of the fighting, or in apprehension over their fate in a Jewish state. If the war had not been forced upon Israel by the various Arab countries and the local Arab population, the refugee problem would not exist.
The Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) made sure to perpetuate the refugee problem and to exploit it in their struggle to destroy Israel. From 1948 to the present day, the refugees have been confined to crowded camps, where they live in poverty and despair, and as a deliberate policy, no attempt has been made to absorb them into society or to provide for their welfare. This policy was pursued in order to engender international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, at the expense of the Palestinians themselves.
Since Israel is neither responsible for the creation of the refugee problem nor for its perpetuation, it cannot take upon itself, even as a gesture, responsibility for this problem. Such a declaration of reponsiblity would have far-reaching implications:
- It would legitimize the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" to areas that are part of the State of Israel. The arrival of millions of Palestinians in Israel (whose present Jewish and Arab population is just over 6 million) would in effect end Israel's independent existence as a Jewish state.
- It would be used by the refugees as a basis for advancing claims against Israel for compensation for lost property, as well as for the suffering they have undergone for the last 52 years.
- It would facilitate claims by the refugees' "host countries" for compensation from Israel for the cost of "hosting" these refugees, when these same countries are in fact primarily responsible for creating the problem.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs invokes the following standard myths to insinuate that the Palestinians have forsaken their right of return:
- "... the Arab refusal to accept UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) in 1947...".
- "[The Arab armies'] invasion of the new State of Israel, which initiated the Arab-Israel war of 1948....
- "During that war, many Arabs living in the battle zones abandoned their homes, whether following calls from the Arab leaders, out of fear of the fighting, or in apprehension over their fate in a Jewish state".
- "If the war had not been forced upon Israel by the various Arab countries and the local Arab population, the refugee problem would not exist." .
Despite Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims -- in points A, B, or C -- according to international law Palestinian and other refugees are entitled to full restitution, which includes the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes of origin, the return of their property, and the right to compensation for material and non-material losses.
These rights are inalienable and are not dependent on the refugee's acceptance of unrelated political resolutions, their agreement on who started the war that resulted in them becoming refugees, the reasons why refugees left their homes, or their treatment in the societies in which they live as refugees.
9. What is Israel's position with regard to the Jewish settlements in the territories?
Jews have been living in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza throughout recorded history.
Excluding the period of the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967), Jewish settlements have existed in the area for centuries.
The most prominent among them was the Jewish community in Hebron.
During the British Mandate (1917-1948), Jewish settlements were established in the Etzion Bloc, in the areas north of Jerusalem (Atarot and Neve Yaakov), north of the Dead Sea (Kalia, Beit Ha-arava) and in the Gaza area (Kfar Darom).
The establishment of these communities was consistent with the mandate that the British received from the League of Nations promoting the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in the area.
Although these settlements were evacuated during the War of Independence (1948), the Jewish presence in the West Bank and Gaza was reestablished following the Six Day War (1967), and today numbers more than 200,000 individuals.
Regarding the legal status of the areas, Israel is of the view that since Jordan never had legal sovereignty over the West Bank, and Egypt never had legal sovereignty over the Gaza territory, these areas could not be considered "occupied territories" under international law.
This is especially true due to the fact that these territories came under Israeli control in 1967, in a clear act of self-defense.
Nevertheless, Israel has taken upon itself to apply to the territories under its control all the humanitarian provisions of international law referring to situations of occupation.
Similarly, none of the various agreements between Israel and the Palestinians that have been signed from 1993 onwards contain any prohibition against building or expanding settlements.
The only restriction, set down in the Interim Agreement, was that neither side take steps to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to the discussion on final status.
Clearly, the growth of Jewish communities has no more effect on the status of these territories than the growth of Palestinian communities.
Israel's position, as expressed by its leaders, is that in a permanent status agreement, Jewish residents of these areas should remain under Israeli sovereignty.
The establishment of permanent Israeli civilian settlements contravenes international humanitarian law, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring population from its territory into the territory it occupies, and from performing any act in an occupied territory that is not intended to meet its military needs or benefit the local population. This is the reason for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' convoluted and unconvincing argument asserting that the previously existing "legal status of the areas" in fact means that Israel does not currently militarily occupy them, although every other country in the world regularly affirms this reality, as can be seen by browsing the various United Nations documents cited throughout this response to the FAQ.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that,
"the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."The commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross on this article states that the article is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.
One of the declared purposes of the settlers, and of the Israeli governments that established the settlements, was and continues to be to change the demographics in the Occupied Territories, something that has been achieved in many areas where Israeli settlements are concentrated, most notably around (or as Israel claims, "in") Jeruslalem.
The Israeli government -- not settlers themselves -- initiated most of the Jewish settlement activities in the Occupied Territories. All of the relevant ministries and authorities have assisted in this illegal effort by first expropriating land, and then planning, implementing, and financing the construction of settlements. The various Israeli governments encouraged and continue to encourage Israeli civilians to move to the Occupied Territories by providing benefits, such as grants and loans under favorable terms.
Even where individual settlers, rather than the government, established settlements, the government acted retroactively to turn these into permanent settlements. To achieve this, the government assisted with planning, infrastructure, establishment of public buildings and institutions, expropriation of land to expand the settlements, and encouragement of other Israeli civilians to live there.
A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law relating to territory subject to belligerent occupation is that occupation is essentially a temporary situation. The assumed temporary nature of occupation entails limitations imposed on the occupying power, which is forbidden to create permanent "facts-on-the-ground" in occupied territory.
Article 46 of the Hague Regulations prohibits the confiscation of private property. Article 52 allows the occupying power to requisition land in exchange for compensation, but only to meet its military needs. Requisition of land, contrary to confiscation, is temporary by definition, and the occupying power does not obtain ownership. Article 55 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that the occupying state is regarded only as trustee of public property in the area, and does not obtain ownership of the property. Thus, the occupying state may only institute permanent changes where they are intended for the local population.
10. What is Israel's position on a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?
A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would not only be a breach of all existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, it would also contribute to the escalation of the conflict, the worsening of violence and the destabilization of the entire region.
The Palestinians have the option of pursuing their national aspirations through peace negotiations aimed at finding a stable, mutually acceptable solution, which will guarantee the security of Palestinians and Israelis alike.
The one-sided establishment of a state that is not achieved through negotiations and mutual agreement cannot be considered legitimate.
Such a proclamation would seriously undermine regional stability.
The establishment of a Palestinian state is not dependent on Israel's approval. Palestinians have the right to self-determination. UNGA 2767 (XXV C, adopted on 8 December 1970,
"recognises that the people of Palestine are entitled to equal rights and self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the UN".This was reaffirmed even more unequivocally in General Assembly Resolution (2787 XXVI) of 6 December 1971.
On March 25, 1999 the European Union issued the Berlin Declaration, which reaffirmed its continuing and unqualified support for the Palestinians' right to self-determination, including the option of a state, and which looks forward to the early fulfillment of this right. It stressed that this right is not subject to any veto. The European Union additionally declared
"its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course."The real question here is why Israel should feel it has any right to interfere in the inevitable conclusion of Palestinian self-determination, when Israel never sought approval from Palestinians for the declaration of its own state on their land.
"The one-sided establishment of a state that is not achieved through negotiations and mutual agreement cannot be considered legitimate," indeed.
11. What is the situation in Israel today?
Life in Israel continues without major disruptions.
Restaurants and shopping malls are busy.
Tourist attractions remain open.
Industry and factories are working normally, without hindrance or interruption - including, of course, Israel's hi-tech sector.
In the course of the peace process, there have been many ups and downs.
Whatever the political environment, the Israeli economy has continued to grow and develop.
Ironically, this answer completely contradicts Israel's claim that it is a population "under siege" during this current period, a claim that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has worked very hard to inject into international media coverage in order to depict its repression of the Palestinian Uprising as "self-defence."
On the other hand, Israel has completly disrupted life in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza with helicopter attacks and tank shelling of Palestinian towns, the assassination of Palestinian activists, and a punishing closure of Palestinian towns that resulted in a 30 percent unemployment rate (a 19 percent increase) in the first month of the Uprising alone.
For more information, see The Impact on the Palestinian Economy of the Recent Confrontations, Mobility Restrictions and Border Closures, 28 September - 19 October 2000, Office Of The United Nations Special Co-ordinator, 19 October 2000.
A more recent summary can be found in the Intifada factsheet of the HDIP (updated daily).
12. How does Israel regard the severing of relations by Morocco, Tunisia and Oman?
The breaking off of relations with Israel by Morocco, Tunisia and Oman is extremely regrettable. At a time when all parties in the region should be working to contain the conflict and to restore calm to the region, it is of utmost importance to keep all possible lines of direct communication and cooperation open. In this light, the limiting of relations between states runs counter to the interests of the region and is particularly unfortunate.
The breaking-off of relations with Israel by Morocco, Tunisia and Oman is one of the few tools of protest that states concerned with Israeli repression of the Palestinians have access to. If other countries would follow suit, we might actually see a peaceful resolution of the conflict. As it stands, with the United States vetoing any meaningful resolution passed by the nations of the world at the United Nations, there are few other avenues through which to effect a peaceful international hand of restraint on Israel.
13. What is Israel doing about attacks on Gilo and other Jerusalem neighborhoods?
Gilo is a residential neighborhood of Jerusalem, with about 40,000 inhabitants.
Together with other Jerusalem neighborhoods, Gilo has been subjected to indiscriminate sniper and machine gun attacks from neighboring areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
Israel condemns in the strongest possible terms these repeated attacks by Palestinians on homes of innocent Israelis. The unprovoked and deliberate firing on civilian targets is utterly reprehensible.
The attacks against Gilo have been launched from the adjacent Christian Arab village of Beit Jala.
Israel believes that these attacks are a deliberate attempt by Palestinian militants to draw the Christian world into the conflict by provoking Israeli reprisals which would damage Christian shrines.
As a result, Israel has done its utmost to respond to these unprovoked attacks with the greatest possible restraint, pinpointing only those buildings from which the attacks have been launched.
Gilo is not a "neighborhood" or "suburb". According to international law, It is an Israeli settlement built illegally on occupied territory. UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions confirm the 1949 Geneva Convention's prohibition on Israeli settlement activities in any part of occupied Palestinian land, including East Jerusalem. International law forbids an occupying power from confiscating the land and resources of an occupied people, the Palestinians.
The establishment and expansion of the settlement of Gilo was achieved through annexation, flagrant discrimination, land theft, expulsion and destruction of a way of life of the indigeneous population, and a sweeping prohibition on an entire public, the Palestinian population, from entering their land. These acts violate a long list of international agreements that bind Israel.
Israel's reaction to shootings by a handful of Palestinians from the Bethlehem and Beit Jala area, who own the land on which the settlement is built, has been to shell these towns, causing extensive damage to homes, offices, shops and religious sites. Presumably even the most hawkish pro-Israeli supporter understands that the handful of Palestinians involved in this kind of resistance are not firing from inside their own homes, from inside their own mosques, or from inside their own churches, and that Israeli's claim to "[pinpoint] only those buildings from which the attacks have been launched" is a simple fabrication.
14. How are the Palestinians faring economically?
Israel has made substantial efforts since the signing of the Oslo accords to facilitate Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation in the context of the peace process. As a result, there has been a marked expansion of Palestinian trade and employment in Israel, as well as other forms of economic cooperation from 1994 until the present outbreak of violence.
Israel, in collaboration with the Palestinian Authority, has taken a broad range of actions since 1994 in order to promote and improve the free movement of goods and labor from the Palestinian Authority into Israel. Industrial parks have also been set up in the Palestinian Authority, involving substantial Israeli investment and economic incentives. These measures have had a significant, positive impact on the Palestinian economy.
Unfortunately, the recent events have led to a sharp decline in economic activity in the area, with economic repercussions for both the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
The Government of Israel is seeking to stabilize the situation in the territories, and to ease conditions for those living there. Israel has no desire to burden the Palestinian civilian population not involved in terrorism and violence. However, the acute security threat presented by Palestinian terrorism makes some measure unavoidable, if Israel is to fulfill its duty as a sovereign state to safeguard the lives of its citizens. Travel restrictions have been put into effect, in order to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens in the West Bank and Gaza - protecting them from indiscriminate terrorism on the roads. The passage of Palestinians from the territories into Israel has also been restricted, so as to prevent the spillover of violence and terrorism into Israeli cities. Exceptions are made for the movement of commercial goods, food, medicine, ambulances and medical crews, which continue to circulate freely. Moreover, procedures have been simplified to enable speedy delivery to the Palestinian Authority of humanitarian goods, such as medical supplies.
It must be stressed that the purpose of these security precautions is not punitive. Rather these steps have become necessary to ensure the security of Israeli citizens in these trying times. It is Israel's policy to differentiate as much as possible between those perpetrating, aiding and directing terrorist activities, and the civilian population which is uninvolved in terrorism. If calm prevails in particular areas, improvements can be implemented there independently of other areas. Consequently, the impact of the events on the local civilian population is dependent, more than any other factor, on the degree to which they participate in terrorism and violence.
The Palestinian economy has been severely damaged since September of 2000.
The office of the United Nations Special Coordinator has estimated daily economic losses at over US$ 8 million, not including material damage to physical assets.
This amounts to a cumulative loss of almost US$400 million to date, far exceeding the total value of donor disbursements to the Palestinian Authority this year.
This crippling of Palestinian trade and other economic activities has extremely negative consequences for the realisation of the rights to food, health care, education and work (For more information, see The Impact on the Palestinian Economy of the Recent Confrontations, Mobility Restrictions and Border Closures, 28 September - 19 October 2000, Office Of The United Nations Special Co-ordinator, 19 October 2000).
Unemployment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has tripled during the crisis of the last five months, causing severe economic hardships, especially for poor and vulnerable sectors of the population.
Israel has destroyed Palestinian agricultural land in the territories, including over 3,000 acres in Gaza alone, and has prevented farmers from harvesting their crops.
Israel has shut down the Gazan fishing industry, and Israeli use of heavy weapons has destroyed utilities, schools, homes, roads, cars and civilian property throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Trade between Gaza, the West Bank and Israel has virtually ceased due to the internal and external closures.
Israel has closed border crossings to Jordan and Egypt, and restricted use of the airport and seaports, cutting off most Palestinian access to the outside world.
In other words, the Palestinian economy--and the Palestinian people--are enduring a state of seige.
Israeli policies of occupation, expropriation and blockade are deliberate acts of state that discriminate against Palestinians and negatively impact their enjoyment of the full range of economic, social and cultural rights.
15. And what about cyber-terrorism?
During the past months, the website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as other Israeli websites, have been victimized by cyber-terrorists.
Like the book-burners of the past, these digital vandals are engaged in a reprehensible effort to block access to information.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs fails to mention that the 'cyber war' started with the hacking of the website of Hezbollah by Israeli hackers.
The Washington Post reported on October 27, 2000 that "a spearhead force of Israeli hackers, augmented by thousands of teenage keyboard warriors, launched their Internet assault on Hezbollah and other Arab world Web sites earlier this month as violence in the region spun out of control."
The Israeli cyber-attacks on Hezbollah apparently began in the first week of October after the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah seized three Israeli soldiers on patrol along the South-Lebanese border.
"Israelis began circulating among themselves electronic chain letters and other messages containing instructions for how to strike back against Hezbollah, as well as pro-Palestinian Web sites and portals around the Arab world. Many Israelis say they received a half-dozen or more such e-mails" (The Washington Post, 27 October 2000)
Israeli hackers have defaced about 50 Arab sites, including that of the Iranian Ministry of Agriculture and, according to the report, that of the purely commercial Jordan-based albawaba.com Internet gateway. One attack against albawaba.com depicted Palestinian Authority head Yasser Arafat as a pig in several vulgar sexual postures.
In tit-for-tat form, the English-language Beirut Daily Star reported, pro-Hezbollah Web sites urged Arab hackers to "bring down" Israeli targets. And the hackers hit far away, successfully invading the website of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
16. What about the outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide?
Israel is concerned by the recent, significant rise in anti-Semitism, directed against Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere. These anti-Semitic attacks, which are occurring against the backdrop of the present conflict in the territories, have included bombings of synagogues, death threats and violence against Jews, desecration of Jewish cemeteries and other forms of vandalism.
These incidents should arouse the deep concern of all civilized peoples.
Israel calls on the governments of countries where the scourge of anti-Semitism is spreading to take all measures necessary to ensure the security of Jewish communities - and to bring the perpetrators of these cowardly attacks to justice.
Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism and ethnic discrimination, is completely unacceptable.However, this is patently not a view shared by Israel. A crass double standard is evident in this part of the FAQ, in which Israel asserts that anti-Semitic attacks "should arouse the deep concern of all civilized peoples", and yet most of this document seeks to put to sleep the deep concern of all civilized people about Israel's current and historical violence against the Palestinian people.
Additionally, if Israel indeed considers racism and ethnic discrimination to be as deplorable as it claims it does, one must ask Israel's representatives why Palestinians living inside the borders of the Israeli state have experienced precisely that same discrimination throughout the 53-year-old history of Israel's Apartheid system, including mob destruction of their property, as outlined in What has happened to Jewish and Muslim holy sites? above.
More disturbing still, several of the assertions about Palestinians in this very FAQ produced by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are racist, the most obvious of which is the false accusation that Palestinians are sending their children to be sacrificed for propaganda purposes, as if Palestinian parents somehow love their children less than parents from any other race of people.