TruthNews Commentary, May 24, 2003

A group called the "International Solidarity Movement" has been in the news lately resisting Israeli anti-terrorist actions in the disputed territories. The group brings in foreigners to use nonviolent means to block Israeli military activities. One might suppose from their name and the use of the term "nonviolence" that the International Solidarity Movement is a group that wants to help oppressed people. An examination of the group’s stated aims and methods, however, reveals that their solidarity is not with the Palestinian people, but with the terrorists that operate from Palestinian autonomous areas.

The very use of nonviolent resistance is recognition of the basic humanity and decency of the Israeli government. Ghandi was able to win Indian independence with nonviolence because the British government was unwilling to kill large number of unarmed protesters. Martin Luther King, Jr., was able to win civil rights for blacks because police were unwilling to use violence against peaceful protests. Such was not the case in China, where the communist government killed thousands of peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square. But the International Solidarity Movement’s website reveals that the group is not a true believer in nonviolence. Here is what they have to say about themselves:

The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.

As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance.

The implication in the International Solidarity Movement's statement that they "recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle" is that the Palestinians are engaging in "legitimate armed struggle." This is not the case. The only "legitimate armed struggle" recognized by international law is by uniformed soldiers acting under lawful orders against enemy soldiers. Palestinian armed struggle is conducted by irregulars dressed in civilian clothes, acting in many cases on their own initiative in unregulated militias against civilians. Suicide bombings and sniper attacks against civilians are hardly "legitimate armed struggle." Even attacks against Israeli soldiers in the disputed territories do not fall within the definition of "legitimate armed struggle," unless the attacks were carried out by uniformed soldiers under orders of the Palestinian government. During the nearly three years of the intifada, there has not been a single instance of "legitimate armed struggle." In addition, the Palestinian Authority renounced violence in the Oslo accords. Arafat has consistently denied any involvement in the terrorism against Israel. While we know he's lying, the Palestinian terrorists can hardly argue that they are acting under the lawful orders of Arafat when he's denying that he gave any orders.

I can find no reference of Ghandi saying that he supported the legitimate armed struggle of the Indian people. I can find no reference of Martin Luther King supporting the legitimate armed struggle of the black people. You cannot embrace nonviolence and support "armed struggle," which is another word for violence. By stating that they support "legitimate armed struggle," the International Solidarity Movement is implicitly endorsing terrorist attacks against civilians. By preaching nonviolence but endorsing violence, the International Solidarity Movement is only protecting the perpetrators of violence. By providing human shields to protect murdering thugs, the International Solidarity Movement is actively aiding in the murders committed by those murdering thugs.

Does the International Solidarity Movement support or condone suicide bombings? We took a look at their web site at an article called "ISM Statement on Recent Bombings in Tel Aviv." After reading through a 1,727 word diatribe condemning Israel, we finally came to the following statement:

While we absolutely do not support in any way the attack by the two Britons in Tel Aviv, or any other targeting and killing of civilians - Palestinian or Israeli - we believe that significant fault for the Tel Aviv attack lies [with] the Israeli security apparatus - which clearly failed its own citizens. The ISM bears no responsibility in anyway, as there was absolutely no connection between these two men and the ISM. Furthermore we believe that Israeli security can be greatly enhanced by Israel declaring an immediate end to the occupation, withdrawing its forces from the Occupied Territories, and complying with UN resolutions and international law.

This is little more than a justification for terrorism. We'll translate it for you: We don't agree with the bombing but the Israelis got what they deserved. While this statement purports to not "support" the suicide bombing, it clearly blames Israel for any violence taken against it. By providing a 1,727-word denunciation of Israel coupled with support for "legitimate armed struggle," the International Solidarity Movement clearly encourages violence by inciting hatred of Israel.

It should be remembered that Israel, under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered to end the "occupation" of the disputed territories during the Camp David summit in 2000. The only condition was that the Palestinians end the conflict against Israel. Arafat rejected this offer because he wanted the right of return of the Palestinians to their ancestral homes within Israel, he wanted control of the old city of Jerusalem, and he did not want to end the conflict. These points of contention do not deal with just the disputed territories but indeed the entire nation of Israel. The Palestinians are not fighting just to get Israel out of the disputed territories (they had that under Oslo) but to get the Palestinians into Israel. With the current demographic trends, the population of Palestinian Arabs will exceed that of the Israeli Jews within 10 to 20 years. With unlimited immigration into Israel as envisioned under the "right of return," this would spell the end of the Palestinian homeland.

Let's clarify a few more points here. In 1948, Israel accepted the UN's proposed partition of Britain's Palestine mandate into Jewish and Arab nations. The Arabs did not. When Israel declared independence in 1948, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq invaded the nascent Jewish state and attempted to destroy it. After the Arab armies seized the Old City of Jerusalem and large swaths of land in the east and south of Palestine, the Israelis were able to stop the Arab advance. The present borders of the West Bank and the Gaza strip represent the 1949 cease-fire lines, and do not in any sense constitute legally recognized borders.

From 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan, and the Gaza strip was controlled by Egypt. In 1967, Egyptian dictator Nasser kicked the UN peacekeeping force out of the Sinai peninsula, massed his army on the borders of Israel, and closed off the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in violation of international law (Israeli ships traveling from the southern Israeli port of Eilat must transit through the Straits of Tiran in order to get to the Red Sea). By "closed off," we mean that Egypt threatened to sink the ships by firing at them with artillery in the Sinai peninsula. At the same time, Jordan's King Hussein put control of his army in the West Bank under Egyptian control. Syrian artillery in the Golan Heights began shelling Israeli villages in the Galilee. In response, Israel seized the Sinai Peninsula, whereupon Jordanian artillery began shelling Israeli West Jerusalem. The Israeli army then drove the Jordanian army out of Jerusalem and the West Bank and also seized the Golan Heights to stop Syrian bombardment of the Galilee.

In response to this situation, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 242 which called for "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" based on two principles:

• "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

• "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

• Recognize Israel's right to exist

• End to the state of war maintained by the Arab world against Israel

• Provide secure and recognized boundaries for Israel

At the time, the U.N. recognized that 242 did not require Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 ceasefire lines. Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said "Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson said, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace."

Following the passage of UN 242, the Arab countries refused to negotiate with Israel, and a state of belligerency continued. However, after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, Egypt negotiated a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt under the condition that it remain demilitarized with a multinational peacekeeping force. Egypt, which did not want the Gaza strip back, recognized Israel.

In 1994, Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan. Jordan relinquished claims to the West Bank, and recognized Israel. Syria has never negotiated with Israel and technically, the two countries remain in a state of war with Israel.

In 1993, Israel signed the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which provided for limited Palestinian autonomy in the disputed territories with final status to be negotiated over the next five years. This period was later extended to seven years, at the conclusion of which the second intifada began.

During Israel's seven-year peace treaty with the PLO, the PLO never fulfilled its commitment to recognize the State of Israel. The PLO covenant, which calls for the destruction of Israel, was never amended. Sporadic terrorism continued, despite PLO commitments to stop terrorism. Only one election was conducted, in 1995.

What’s clear from all of this is that Israel’s "occupation" of the disputed territories is not illegal. Israel seized the disputed territories as a result of acts of war by Egypt and Jordan. UN Security Council Resolution 242 provides the only legal basis for ending the Israel "occupation" of the disputed territories: a just and lasting peace based on Israeli withdrawal to secure borders combined with Arab recognition and an ending the conflict. Egypt and Jordan both negotiated peace treaties with Israel in which they relinquished claims to the disputed territories. Israel also negotiated a seven-year peace treaty with Arafat and his PLO. But Arafat wants Israel to withdraw without fulfilling his own obligations: negotiating secure borders for Israel, recognizing Israel, and ending the conflict.

Foreigners who travel to the disputed territories to show their solidarity with the Palestinian people seem to have no such feeling of solidarity with other oppressed peoples of the world. Where is their solidarity with the Israeli victims of terrorism? Where is their solidarity with the people of Lebanon, who have suffered under a brutal Syrian occupation for the last 30 years? Where is their solidarity with Christians in Sudan, where the Islamic government has killed over 2 million? Where was their solidarity with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi victims? Where is their solidarity with persecuted Chinese Christians? Where is their solidarity with Chinese-occupied Tibet? Where was their solidarity with the Taliban's victims? There is a whiff of anti-Semitism here. Their solidarity is not with oppressed peoples but only with the enemies of Israel.

Do the Palestinian Arabs deserve better? Absolutely. But the root of their problem is not Israel but Arafat and his gang of thugs. The International Solidarity Movement is not helping the Palestinians to get rid of Arafat. By helping Arafat maintain his control over the Palestinian people, they’re helping him to loot and terrorize his own people while committing wanton acts of murder against Israelis.