12 Answers to 12 Conventional Lies

1. • Barak has turned every stone to achieve peace.
2. • At Camp David, Barak went further than any previous Prime Minister
3. • Arafat blew up the Camp David summit.

(4) -All the time, we give, give, give. Arafat doesn’t give anything!

(5) -How can one make peace with the Palestinians when they break every agreement?

6. • Barak is the heir to Rabin.
7. • The lynching in Ramallah shows that the Arabs are animals.
8. • The Palestinian media are instruments of incitement.
9. • They shoot at us and the Israeli army is exercising self-restraint.

(10) – The Arabs send their children against our army positions, so that they can be killed, Inorder to provide pictures for the world media.

11. • Again it is proved that the whole world is against us. They are all anti-Semites.
12. • We have no partner for peace.

Barak has turned every stone to achieve peace.

Truth is, he has turned every stone to build settlements. Since his first day in office, he hasaccelerated the pace of setting up new settlements (in the guise of “enlarging” existingones), confiscating lands, demolishing Palestinian homes and building “by-pass roads”(whose main purpose is to add Palestinian lands to the “settlement blocs” which he wants toannex to Israel.) In all these activities, Barak has done more than Netanyahu.

In the political field, too, Barak has upstaged Netanyahu: Bibi returned at least the greaterpart of the town Hebron to the Palestinians. Barak has not returned one single inch of occupiedterritory.

At Camp David, Barak went further than any previous Prime Minister

Even if this were true, it would mean very little. If one Marathon runner (Netanyahu) fallsdown after one mile, and another (Barak) falls down after three, the difference between themis not really important. What is important is that neither of them got even near the finishingline (26 miles).

Barak’s proposals at Camp David were far from the minimum necessary to make peace with thePalestinian people and the whole Arab world: Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem,and especially the compound of the holy mosques (Haram al-Sharif).

Barak indicated at Camp David that he might “consider” some cosmetic changes (and thereby heindeed broke some of the Israeli taboos concerning Jerusalem) – but as a matter of fact hedenied the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslims sovereignty over the compound of the holymosques and the major Arab neighborhoods in the city. That’s why the summit failed and theescalation started, leading up to the “al-Aksa intifada”.

Arafat blew up the Camp David summit.

On the eve of his departure for the summit, Barak announced five “Red Lines”, which he would notcross under any circumstances. Among them: Israeli sovereignty over the entire city ofJerusalem, No return to the 1967 border, Keeping 80% of the settlers were they are, No return ofa single refugee to Israel!!! Afterwards he softened some of these stands, but not enough tocome anywhere near an agreement.

All the time, we give, give, give. Arafat doesn’t give anything!

When the Palestinians agreed to a peace settlement based on the pre-1967 border (the GreenLine), they were already giving up in advance 78% of the land between the sea and the Jordanriver. They are ready to set up their state in the remaining 22%. Our government wants a“compromise” over this area. Meaning: “What’s mine is mine, about what’s yours, we shallcompromise”.

(Factual background: the November 29, 1947, UN partition resolution gave the Jewish state55% and the Arab state 45% of Palestine. In the ensuing war [started by the Arabs], we conqueredhalf of the territory allotted to the Arab state. Thus the “Green Line” came about, leaving 78%of the country in our hands.)

The problem is not expressed in percentage points only. Barak appears to be asking for only 10%of the occupied territories. In reality, it’s closer to 30%, taking into account theterritories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his “security control” inthe Jordan valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentagepoints cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinianstate will consist of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

How can one make peace with the Palestinians when they break every agreement?

Well, Palestinian violations pale in comparison with ours. Before the end of the 5-yearsinterim period (May 1998), the IDF had to withdraw from all the West Bank and the Gaza Stripexcept “specified military locations”, settlements and Jerusalem. Barak refuses to do thiseven at this late date. Also, four “safe passages” between the West Bank and Gaza should havebeen in operation long ago. In practice, only one was opened, and this one can only be used byPalestinians after much harassment.

Barak is the heir to Rabin.

Far from it. Within a few months he has succeeded in destroying not only all the achievements ofRabin, but those of Begin, too. He has buried the Oslo agreement (to which he objected from thebeginning) and destroyed the relations built up with much effort between Israel and a numberof Arab countries. He has created ferment among the Arab citizens in Israel itself. In manyrespects, he has thrown us back to 1948, even 1936.

The lynching in Ramallah shows that the Arabs are animals .

In a confrontation like this one, each side points to the atrocities committed by the other,“forgetting” the atrocities committed by his own side. Israel points to the horriblelynching, the Palestinians point to the killing of 12-years old Muhammad al-Dira in the armsof his father and the brain-killing bullets used by Israel army snipers againststone-throwing children. Our acts of violence come in response to the actions of thePalestinians, theirs come in response to ours. It’s a vicious circle.

The Palestinian media are instruments of incitement.

That is true, but unfortunately there is no great difference between theirs and ours in thisrespect. Ours and theirs speak the same language, following guidelines from above. WhenPalestinian TV shows over and over again the picture of the boy dying in the arms of his father,that’s incitement. When our TV shows dozens of times a day, day after day, the atrociouslynching in Ramallah, that’s incitement.

They shoot at us and the Israeli army is exercising self-restraint.

It is strange that in two weeks of “self-restraint”’ about 110 Palestinian and 3 Israelisoldiers have been killed. No Israeli officer has explained (or was asked to explain) thiscurious ratio.

(The explanation is, of course, that the Israeli army has long in advance trained snipers tochoose a person from among the demonstrators, take exact aim through a telescopic sight andhit him with a special deadly, high-velocity bullet. Instead of “pacifying” the area, asintended, this method has inflamed it even more. Every funeral has led to anotherconfrontation.)

The Arabs send their children against our army positions, so that they can be killed, in orderto provide pictures for the world media.

This is a horrendous accusation, betraying an obnoxious racism. It contains the belief thatArab parents do not care about their children dying.

In the struggle waged by our underground organizations before 1948 and during our War ofIndependence, boys and girls played an important part. The arms training of Palestinian boysis no different from the training of our own Gadna youth battalions. The boy who, in 1948,destroyed a Syrian tank at kibbutz Deganya has become a national hero. When a people fights forits very existence and freedom, its youth cannot but take part. (I joined the Irgun, defined bythe British as a terrorist organization, at the age of 14 and a half. By the age of 15 I carriedguns.)

It is an illusion to think that Palestinian parents can restrain their children from going outinto the street and throwing stones, when they live under a cruel occupation and theirbrothers and sisters provide examples of heroism and self-sacrifice. It is natural for thePalestinian people to be proud of them.

Joan of Arc, by the way, was 16 years old when she led the French army into battle.

The settlers routinely exploit their children and babies, not hesitating to put them inharm’s way.

Again it is proved that the whole world is against us. They are all anti-Semites.

World public opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath andthey are David.

In the eyes of the world, the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreignoccupation. We are in their territory, not they in ours. We settle on their land, not they onours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and nominister of propaganda (like Mr. Nachman Shai) can change that.

We have no partner for peace.

True, we have no partner for a peace that Palestinians see as a capitulation to Israeliultimatums. We do have a partner for a peace based on equality and mutual respect.

The solution is quite clear: the State of Palestine must be set up within the pre-1967 border,with Jerusalem serving as the capital of the two states – East Jerusalem with the Haramal-Sharif must belong to Palestine, West Jerusalem with the Western Wall and the Jewishquarter must belong to Israel..

When this solution is accepted in principle, negotiations can start about the otherproblems: mutual security, exchange of territories, a moral and practical solution for therefugee problem, water allocation etc.

This peace will come about, because the only alternative is hell for both sides.