These last few years, I have made an attempt to correct some of the horrible historical revision about Israel through lectures, radio guests, radio monologues and blogs.  Needless to say, I have received some interesting responses by Internet, over the air, and in person. The responses absolutely depress me because they come from friendly, sincere, but extremely ignorant, misled, brainwashed people. If I were arguing against some evil person who knew the truth but was simply lying through his teeth, I could stomach it more easily.

I hope you will read some of my back blogs; especially my 12 part series entitled The Truth About Israel and Palestine. In the meantime, I have paraphrased some of the most common quotables that have come my way in recent months and I will list them alongside their necessary responses.  Most of these are the kinds of fun statements you would hear around the water cooler at work or at some cocktail party from your many friends who repeat what sounds popular and Politically Correct.  On the other hand, some of the comments have come from teachers and professional debaters, people in a position of influence, who should seriously consider taking a sabbatical and acquainting themselves with the actual facts before talking about a subject they know nothing about, especially when they have such an opportunity to change minds. I do not believe any of them will do this, but for those of you who are open to hearing a different perspective, I offer today’s piece.

I’ll begin with the worst comment of all:  “It was the original purpose of Zionism to do ethnic cleansing.” Definition of Zionist: One who believes the Jews have a right to their own national homeland and that this homeland is the area today designated, Israel.

Supposedly those with such a belief also believe in ethnic cleansing.

That it the most utter nonsense and propaganda, mere bumpkin for the masses but the masses are eating it up with a spoon. Oh sure, you can always find some nutcase Zionist who may have said something to that effect. But if we want to talk about a volatile issue like this, we need to look at what actually happened and we need to view the situation in general, without getting sidetracked by the fact that one can always find an exception to the rule.

When the United Nations agreed to partition Palestine into two states, a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews agreed and the Arabs did not. That is the bottom line and this fact is undisputed.  The Arabs swore publicly that they would murder every single Jewish man, woman and child. (See quotes from such Arab leaders in my 12 part series)  On the other hand, the 160,000 Arabs, who chose to stay in Israel and live in peace, were made Israeli citizens. They and their children remain in Israel to this day where they receive more rights than any Arab in any Arab country. So where exactly is this ethnic cleansing?

Comment Two: “The problem Arabs have with Israel is her illegal occupation of Palestine.”

No, the problem Arab nations have with Israel is that they do not want a Jewish state in Muslim lands. The serve a scripture that commands them to convert or kill any non-Muslim (Surah 9).

If you want to use the United Nations as a barometer of what is legal and what is not, the UN legally gave that land to Israel. This was after the League of Nations had promised much more to Israel and 75 percent of it was sold behind their backs to the Arabs, creating the state of Jordan. Look, I am no lover of the UN and I do not always accept their legal decisions as ethical decisions, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot use the UN when it suits you (such as criticizing the war in Iraq) and ignore it when it does not suit you. According to the UN, Israel exists legally and according to the former League of Nations; the land taken away from the Jews was taken illegally.

The land Israel captured in 1967 was in response to a decision on the part of her neighbors to try to annihilate her once again and most of that land had been promised to her under the Balfaur Declaration (League of Nations mandate) anyway.

Be that as it may, recently, Israel left Gaza and supposedly this was going to put us on a “roadmap to peace.” What are the Palestinians doing as a token of gratitude?  They are routinely firing missiles into Israel! They also teach their children in kindergarten classes and on TV that Jews are devils to be hated. Don’t tell me that isn’t true. I’ve seen it myself. While we’re on the subject, Israel does not show up on Palestinian maps and if you ask Palestinians if the entire conflict would be over should they become a separate state, they will then talk about “the right of return.” Nothing, and I mean NOTHING Israel does will ever be enough and if you think otherwise, you are naïve. You are also easy, because the Arabs decided years ago that since they could not defeat Israel militarily, they would launch a PR campaign instead. It has worked. 

Comment Three: “Israel struck first in the Six Day war.”

Yes, she did, but only after President Nasser of Egypt said his men were all eager to kill every single Jew. What part of the word “kill” do you not understand? Let us not talk about half the situation without viewing the entire pie.

Comment Four: “True, Israel has been the victim of terrorist attacks, but she retaliates with terrorism of her own.”

Some of the people who make such comments admit to being pacifists who do not believe that any kind of violent response is ever warranted. This is often the problem in a conversation like this. Two parties are using the same terminology, terrorism, but operating with two completely different moral compasses. Some believe that any violence at all is of equal culpability with other violence. Others see violence as a tool. I can use a hammer to drive nails or I can use a hammer to hit someone on the head. But the hammer is neutral. Violence is also a tool. It can be used for evil or it can be used to suppress evil. Pacifism always sounds good and I should say that I have met pacifists whom I respect, but it is a philosophy that only works under a guarantee that every human heart sooner or later will turn pacifist itself as a result of being influenced by love.  Some pacifists will admit that this may never happen and will allow for “special exceptions” such as the need for police protection in our societies. But aren’t the police, at times, forced to use violence? And if police can use violence, then why not soldiers? Even the famous pacifist, Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful revolt against England worked because the English people had a sense of decency about them. Their soldiers could not beat pacifist demonstrators without feeling pangs of conscience. But what Gandhi did with England would not have worked against the Nazis. You see, there is a place for pacifism but it is often misplaced. We cannot adopt a “one size fits all” approach to world affairs. Different ideologies respond to different methods. Any real terrorism expert tells us that we simply cannot make deals with terrorists. They must be resisted at all costs; otherwise we are like the battered wife who enables her husband by refusing to press charges. When the Germans and other citizens of Europe, stood by, passively refusing to lift a finger against Hitler, were they not enabling the murder of literally millions of people?  Violence for selfish gain and violence with the motive to help others is not one and the same thing. Dietrich Bonohoffer discovered this. At first, he opposed Hitler through passive resistance, but in time, he could no longer justify that kind of pacifism and he participated in plots to destroy Hitler.

Comment Five: “Even some of the Israelis feel they have been mistreating the Palestinians.”

There are many such liberal Israelis. Their views carry as much weight with me as the liberals in America who put down this country. Hearing that somebody disagrees with me only means that somebody disagrees with me. It is not a factual reason to change my position. It is a sad part of our heritage that many of my fellow Jews have often been their own worst enemy, so this is nothing new.

Comment Six: “Most of the world dislikes Israel. Doesn’t that tell you something?”

It tells me a lot about human nature but it tells me absolutely nothing at all about Israel. Throughout history, the majority has been in the wrong more often than the right. There was a time when most of the world believed in slavery. Should the abolitionists not have fought their battles because they started out in the minority?

OK. The debate will continue, of course, but this is all for now. Feel free to call my radio program, should you wish to challenge any of these ideas: I will not respond to challenges over the Internet. Such time will instead be put into new blogs.