FAIR Christians for Fair
Witness on the Middle East
WITNESS 475 Riverside Drive,
Suite 1960
New York, New York
10115
(212) 870-2320
www.christianfairwitness.com
THE GENERAL
BOARD OF GLOBAL MINISTRIES’ RESOLUTION ON THE
ISRAEL-PALESTINE
CONFLICT IS BIASED AND UNBALANCED: Part 1
The General Board of Global Ministries (“GBGM”) has
submitted Petition Number 80441-GM-R323 on the “Israel-Palestine Conflict” to
the United Methodist General Conference.
While claiming to look towards
“a just and lasting peace” in the region,
the GBGM’s resolution follows a pattern of placing all the blame on
Israel and pointing out only Israel’s failings. The reference to the Biblical
commandment “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house,” characterizes Israeli self-defense as a land grab. The resolution also contains vague and inaccurate references to international
law.
1. The
GBGM’s resolution on the Israel-Palestine Conflict states that U.N. Security
Council Resolution 242 “outline[s] a
framework for a just and lasting peace” and “declares ‘the inadmissibility of
the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting
peace in which every State in the area
can live in security.’” HOWEVER . . . .
• Resolution 242, although adopted under Chapter 6 and
therefore non-binding, was important. It remains the basis for a peace
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
• But if GBGM wishes to invoke this resolution it should
invoke it in its entirety -- rather than cherry-pick certain portions to
support its position.
• U.N. Resolution 242 also requires the “Termination of all
claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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.”
• In the 40 years following adoption of 242, Israel has not
been allowed to live in peace or free from threats or acts of force. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in
1973. All states in the region except
Jordan and Egypt still purport to be in a state of war with Israel and many
host or support terrorist groups in active conflict with Israel. Israel has endured years of sporadic
terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank and Gaza and by the PLO and
Hezbollah from Lebanon.
• Currently, Hamas’ clear intent, openly stated in its
charter and by its leaders, is to
destroy Israel.
• As recently as the Annapolis peace talks in November 2007,
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister
Salam Fayad said “ . . .the Palestinians will not recognize [Israel] as a
Jewish state.” Immediately following
Annapolis, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his
rejection of Israel’s demand to recognize it as a Jewish state.
• There is no integrity in a Methodist resolution that
blames Israel for not yet having exchanged land for peace without
simultaneously acknowledging that the Palestinians have not terminated acts of
belligerence, nor have their leaders acknowledged the sovereignty of the Jewish
state.
2. The
GBGM’s resolution on the Israel-Palestine Conflict complains about the Israeli
military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and “seizing . . .
Palestinian land for illegal settlements . . .”
HOWEVER . . . .
• Israel acquired East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in
1967 defending itself against a massive onslaught by every one of its Arab
neighbors who openly vowed that they would annihilate Israel. Days after the 1967 war ended, Israel tried
to open back door negotiations (at the time no Arab country had diplomatic
relations with them) for land in return for peace treaties. The League of Arab States responded by
officially adopting a policy at that time of
no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations with Israel.
• In the summer of 2000 both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Barak and then U.S. President Clinton made offers of land for peace. Yasser
Arafat said no to both offers, made no counteroffer, and walked out of the
Summit. Five months later at Taba,
President Clinton presented a final proposal whereby the Palestinians would get
all of Gaza, 97 percent of contiguous West Bank territory, a capital in East
Jerusalem, three out of four quarters in the Old City in Jerusalem and a 30
Billion Dollar fund to compensate refugees.
Chairman Arafat turned that down as well.
• This history must be acknowledged in any fair and balanced
discussion of the present status of the Palestinian Territories.
• Neither Israel’s occupation of the West Bank or previous
occupation of Gaza were “occupations”
under international law, because there was no legitimate sovereign with title
to these territories in 1967 when Israel acquired them. There has not been
clear title to the West Bank and/or Gaza since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
These are disputed territories to which title can only be determined by peace
treaty.
• Israel disengaged from Gaza in September 2005 and removed
all Jewish settlements there.
Continued Palestinian smuggling of weapons across the Rafah border,
digging of infiltration tunnels and 4,500 Qassam rockets launched into Israel,
make Israeli control over Gaza’s airspace and borders necessary from a security
perspective. There is nothing in
international law that requires Israel to maintain open borders with such a
hostile territory.
• We are not defending the settlements, some of which are
seriously problematic and ill-advised. However, there is little basis to call
them illegal. Although the GBGM does
not specify which law it believes the settlements violate, it is generally
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that is invoked when this accusation
is leveled. Art. 49 prohibits only
forced deportation or population
transfer. The right Art. 49 is designed to protect is the right of the occupied
population to maintain the demographics of their territory. Drafted after World War II, it is aimed at
preventing the kind of mass population transfers the Germans carried out to
alter the demographics of the lands they occupied. The settlements, (built on
empty land, the majority of which was public land), do not change the
demographics of the West Bank -- the great majority population remains
Palestinian -- and do not violate international law. The settlements need not be permanent; but the final status must
be determined in a future peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, as
both parties agreed under the Oslo Accords.
Adopting a Blame Israel For Everything Approach is Unrealistic
and is Not Likely to Advance the Goal of Achieving Peace in the Middle East