A Palestinian Essay Responds to Zionist Pro-Occupation Claims

Article by Hazem Almassry

Header Image: “Jews Honor Resistance to Zionism, Racism & Colonialism“ licensed under CC BY 2.0

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most enduring and contentious issues in modern history, marked by deep-seated historical grievances, geopolitical interests, and a persistent struggle for self-determination. Amidst this complex landscape, various claims and narratives have emerged, often perpetuated by Zionist proponents, which seek to justify the occupation and undermine the legitimacy of Palestinian rights. This essay aims to address and refute these Zionist claims, not with the expectation of convincing Zionists or pro-occupation individuals—who often possess a surplus of strength and support that blinds them to the realities on the ground—but to prevent others from being ensnared by their distorted narratives and misinformation.

This essay seeks to arm readers with factual, well-documented responses to common Zionist assertions. By doing so, we aim to dismantle misleading arguments and preserve the truth. Through a careful examination of historical events, legal principles, and human rights reports, this essay will dismantle several pervasive myths and present a more balanced and accurate portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this way, we hope to contribute to a more informed and just discourse surrounding one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time. 

The following are some of the key claims made by Zionist proponents that will be addressed in this essay:

1. “Jews bought most of the land in Palestine before 1948.”
2. “Jews have a historical right to return to their ‘promised land’ of Palestine, grounded in biblical history and ancient Jewish presence in the region.”
3. “Jews have a historical right to the land controlled by ancient Jews.”
4.  “The Bible gives Jews the divine right to the land.”
5. “Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land.”
6. “Palestine was never a state before, so Palestinians don’t have the right to have a state now.”
7. “The 1947 UN Partition Plan offered a fair and peaceful solution to the conflict in Palestine, and the rejection of this plan by the Palestinians was unreasonable.”
8. “Israel needs to control certain areas in Palestine for security reasons.”
9. “Palestinian refugees should be settled in Arab countries.”
10. “Israel has developed the land and economy, benefiting everyone.”
11. “Palestinians cannot use violence to change the status quo.”
12. “Israel has no problem with Palestinians but only with Hamas and other military groups.”

Claim 1: “Jews bought most of the land in Palestine before 1948.”

Response:

The claim that Jews purchased the majority of the land in Palestine before 1948 is not supported by historical records. By 1947, Jewish land ownership in Palestine amounted to about 1.5 million dunams (1,500 square kilometers), which represented only around 6-7% of the total land area of Palestine, approximately 26,323 square kilometers. These purchases were mainly facilitated by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and other Zionist organizations.

The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry’s report from 1946 indicated that Jews owned 1,514,247 dunams of land by the end of 1946. The Survey of Palestine conducted by the British Mandate authorities in 1946 corroborates these figures, providing a reliable and comprehensive account of land ownership at the time (Government of Palestine, 1946).

Moreover, Jewish land acquisitions were concentrated in specific regions, primarily the Coastal Plains and Jezreel Valley, chosen for their agricultural potential and suitability for large-scale settlements. There were significantly fewer purchases in the hilly regions and densely populated Arab areas. The Palestine Royal Commission (Peel Commission) Report of 1937 details this geographic distribution, highlighting the strategic selection of fertile lands rather than a broad acquisition of territory.

A significant portion of the land purchased by Jews was sold by absentee Arab landowners residing outside Palestine in cities like Beirut, Damascus, and Cairo. While some local Arab villagers did sell land, this was less common. Records from the Palestine Land Development Company and British Mandate land records show that these transactions often involved high prices driven by Zionist demand (Fischbach, 2000; Khalidi, 1992; Khalidi, 1997; Segev, 2000). [1] 

These land transactions were conducted within the legal frameworks established by the Ottoman Empire and later the British Mandate, regulated by laws such as the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 and British Land Ordinances. These laws often favored large landholders, which is why many transactions involved absentee landlords rather than local villagers.

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) Report of 1947provided a detailed analysis of land ownership and demographic patterns, emphasizing that the narrative of extensive Jewish land purchases is an oversimplification. It does not account for the complex legal, social, and political context of the period. Understanding these factors is crucial for a balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Claim 2: ” Jews have a historical right to return to their ‘promised land’ of Palestine, grounded in biblical history, ancient Jewish presence in the region, and divine promise.”

Response:

The assertion that Jews have a historical and divine right to return to Palestine based on biblical narratives, ancient presence, and divine promises is a central part of Zionist narratives. However, this claim overlooks several important aspects of Jewish history and modern legal principles, raising significant issues when applied to contemporary geopolitics.

Firstly, historical context reveals that many modern Jews do not directly descend from the ancient Hebrews but from various groups that adopted Judaism throughout history. Significant conversions to Judaism occurred outside Palestine, such as the Khazar Kingdom in the Caucasus region in the 8th century and the Himyarite Kingdom in what is now Yemen in the 4th and 5th centuries. These conversions illustrate the spread of Jewish communities beyond the historical land of Israel, challenging the idea of a continuous, unbroken Jewish presence and direct lineage in Palestine.

Conversely, many Jews in Palestine converted to other religions, including Christianity and Islam, especially during periods of political and social upheaval. Some Palestinians today are descendants of these ancient Jewish converts. These intermingling and religious transformation over the centuries mean that the genetic and cultural heritage of the region is shared among diverse communities, including present-day Palestinians. Genetic studies add complexity to the narrative of Jewish ancestry, showing significant genetic diversity and similarities with populations in Eastern Europe, supporting historical accounts of conversions and migrations.

Secondly, the claim that the Bible gives Jews a divine right to the land of Palestine is rooted in religious texts, such as the Hebrew Bible, which mentions a divine promise of land to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, the application of these ancient texts to modern statecraft and international law is problematic. International law and modern nation-states do not base territorial claims on religious texts. The legal framework governing land and sovereignty is founded on treaties, agreements, and resolutions established by international bodies like the United Nations. Using religious texts to justify state policies can lead to conflicts and undermine efforts to achieve peace through diplomatic means.

Moreover, multiple religious groups, including Christians and Muslims, also hold religious connections to the land. Jerusalem, for instance, is a city of immense significance to all three Abrahamic faiths. Exclusively prioritizing one group’s religious claims over others’ can exacerbate tensions and ignore the multicultural and multi-religious reality of the region. Many Jewish scholars and religious leaders advocate for ethical and moral interpretations of these texts, emphasizing justice, peace, and coexistence rather than territorial claims.

Lastly, invoking biblical justifications overlooks the rights and presence of the Palestinian people, who have lived on the land for centuries. Recognizing their historical and cultural ties to the land is essential for any just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the Bible holds spiritual significance for many, it should not be used as a basis for contemporary territorial claims. Instead, solutions should focus on principles of justice, equality, and mutual respect among all inhabitants of the region.

This combined analysis demonstrates that the narrative of a straightforward, unbroken right to return to a “promised land” based on ancient presence and divine promise alone is more complex and requires a broader understanding of Jewish history and the diverse origins of modern Jewish communities, as well as contemporary legal and ethical standards.

Claim 3: “Jews have a historical right to the land controlled by ancient Jews.”

Response:

The claim that Jews have a historical right to the land based on ancient Jewish control is problematic and oversimplified, especially when considering the geographical and historical realities of ancient Jewish presence in the region. Even if we accept that Jews lived in Palestine before the Palestinians, it is essential to understand that the territories controlled by ancient Jewish states were significantly different from the modern boundaries of Israel.

Image: Approximate map showing the Kingdoms of Israel (blue) and Judah (orange), ancient Southern Levant borders and ancient cities such as Urmomium and Jerash. The map shows the region in the 9th century BCE (Source: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-israel-and-judah-733-bce )

Historical records and archaeological evidence provide insight into the areas controlled by ancient Jewish states. For instance, according to historical claims in the “History of Ancient Israel and Judah” by authors James Maxwell Miller and John Haralson Hayes, ancient Jewish control did not extend to several regions now under Israeli control. Gaza was not part of ancient Jewish territories, nor were Ashkelon, Acre, or areas northward to the Lebanon borders. Similarly, the Negev desert was not within the dominions of ancient Jewish states.

The modern state of Israel encompasses these areas, which were not historically part of any Jewish kingdom or state. This discrepancy highlights that contemporary territorial claims by Zionists are not strictly based on ancient historical boundaries but rather on a combination of historical narratives, political aspirations, and military realities.

Moreover, the notion that historical claims can dictate modern state borders is deeply flawed. The international community recognizes the right to self-determination and the sovereignty of nations based on current realities and legal frameworks, not ancient historical claims. This principle is evident in the formation of many modern states that did not exist as such in ancient times but were created based on the self-determination of their peoples, like Jordan, Lebanon, and numerous African and European nations.

The Israeli expansion beyond what was controlled by ancient Jewish states can be seen as driven by the “right of might” rather than any legitimate historical entitlement. This approach is evident in the ongoing territorial disputes and the lack of clearly defined borders, which Israel keeps flexible based on its power dynamics.

Thus, the historical right claimed by Zionists does not align with the actual territories controlled by ancient Jewish states. The modern borders of Israel include regions that were never part of ancient Jewish control. Therefore, using historical claims to justify current territorial control is not only inaccurate but also disregards the principles of international law and the right to self-determination of all people in the region.

Claim 4: “The Bible gives Jews the divine right to the land.”  

Response:

The claim that the Bible gives Jews a divine right to the land of Palestine is rooted in religious texts, but it raises significant issues when applied to modern statecraft and international law. While the Hebrew Bible, particularly the books of Genesis and Exodus, mentions a divine promise of land to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the application of these ancient texts to contemporary geopolitics is problematic.

First, international law and modern nation-states do not base territorial claims on religious texts. The legal framework governing land and sovereignty is founded on treaties, agreements, and resolutions established by international bodies such as the United Nations. Using religious texts to justify state policies can lead to conflicts and undermine efforts to achieve peace through diplomatic means.

Second, multiple religious groups, including Christians and Muslims, also hold religious connections to the land. For instance, Jerusalem is a city of immense significance to all three Abrahamic faiths. Exclusively prioritizing one group’s religious claims over others’ can exacerbate tensions and ignore the multicultural and multi-religious reality of the region.

Third, historical interpretations of the Bible vary widely. Many Jewish scholars and religious leaders, such as Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and Professor Marc Zvi Brettler, advocate for ethical and moral interpretations of these texts, emphasizing justice, peace, and coexistence rather than territorial claims.

Lastly, invoking biblical justifications overlooks the rights and presence of the Palestinian people, who have lived on the land for centuries. Recognizing their historical and cultural ties to the land is essential for any just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While the Bible holds spiritual significance for many, it should not be used as a basis for contemporary territorial claims. Instead, solutions should focus on principles of justice, equality, and mutual respect among all inhabitants of the region.

Claim 5: “Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land.”

Response:

The assertion that “Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land” is historically inaccurate and misleading. Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Palestine was home to a thriving and diverse population. Historical records, including Ottoman censuses and British Mandate documents, show that Palestine had a substantial population composed of Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in cities like Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and many villages. For example, the 1914 Ottoman census recorded a population of over 700,000 in Palestine, the majority of whom were Arab (Ottoman Census, 1914). Additionally, various travelers and historians, such as Mark Twain in his 1867 travel book “The Innocents Abroad,” documented the presence of an active and vibrant society. Twain, although often sarcastic in his tone, did not describe an empty land but rather a place with established communities (Twain, 1869).

Furthermore, Palestinian culture, with its rich traditions, architecture, and social structures, was well-developed. The land was actively cultivated, with agriculture forming the backbone of the economy. Villages and towns were interconnected through trade and social ties, reflecting a well-established society.

This myth also ignores the displacement and dispossession of over 700,000 Palestinians that accompanied the creation of Israel in 1948 (the Nakba, or Catastrophe)  which has been well documented in numerous scholarly records by both Palestinian and Israeli historians (eg. Benny Morris, 2004;  Rashid Kahlidi, 2007 ; Manna’, 2013 ). 

Thus, the narrative of “a land without a people” erases the existence and rights of the Palestinian people, who had lived there for centuries. It is essential to recognize and respect the historical and cultural presence of Palestinians in any discussion about the region’s history.

Claim 6: “Palestine was never a state before, so Palestinians don’t have the right to have a state now.”

Response:

The assertion that Palestinians do not have the right to a state because Palestine was never previously a state is flawed and ignores the historical and political evolution of nation-states. This logic would invalidate the statehood of many countries around the world, including Jordan, Lebanon, and numerous African and European nations.

The modern concept of a nation-state is relatively recent, emerging primarily in the 19th and 20th centuries. Before this period, many regions, including the Middle East, were part of larger empires or under different forms of governance. The Ottoman Empire, for example, ruled over much of the Middle East, including Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, without these territories existing as independent nation-states.

Jordan and Lebanon, like Palestine, were not independent states before the 20th century. Jordan was part of the Ottoman Empire and later a British mandate before gaining independence in 1946. Lebanon was also under Ottoman rule and then a French mandate before becoming an independent state in 1943. The lack of prior statehood did not invalidate their right to self-determination and statehood. Similarly, many African countries gained independence in the mid-20th century from colonial powers, forming new states despite having no previous independent statehood. Several European nations underwent significant changes in borders and governance structures throughout history, resulting in the formation of new states.

The existence of a state is not solely defined by historical statehood but by the presence of a distinct people with a shared identity, culture, and connection to a territory. Palestinians have a long-standing presence in the region, with a unique cultural and national identity. Their right to self-determination is recognized under international law, including the United Nations Charter. The international community, through various UN resolutions, has affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and statehood. UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to national independence and sovereignty.

Claim 7: “The 1947 UN Partition Plan offered a fair and peaceful solution to the conflict in Palestine, and the rejection of this plan by the Palestinians was unreasonable.”

Response:

The idea that the 1947 UN Partition Plan was a fair and peaceful solution, and that it was, unreasonably rejected by Palestinians, overlooks several critical aspects of the plan’s design, the intentions of Zionist leaders, and the realities at the time.

The UN Partition Plan proposed dividing Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration. While the Jewish population constituted about one-third of the total population of Palestine and owned roughly 6-7% of the land, the plan allocated 55% of the land to the Jewish state. This disproportionate allocation was perceived as unfair by the Palestinian Arabs, who made up the majority population and owned most of the land. The areas assigned to the Jewish state included many Arab towns and villages, creating significant concerns for the Palestinians.

The proposed borders were irregular and fragmented Palestinian territories while providing strategic advantages to the Jewish state. This arrangement made it challenging for the proposed Arab state to be economically and politically viable, further contributing to the Palestinians’ rejection of the plan.

Zionist leaders, while publicly accepting the UN Partition Plan, were already planning to expand beyond the allocated territories. Historical documents and speeches from Zionist leaders reveal a strategy to secure as much land as possible. For instance, David Ben-Gurion, a primary architect of the Jewish state, stated in a 1937 letter that the borders of the Jewish state would be determined not by the partition but by force and settlement (Ben-Gurion Letter, 1937).

The Haganah, the main Jewish paramilitary organization, had detailed plans (Plan Dalet) to take control of areas beyond the UN-designated borders, including mixed or predominantly Arab areas. This preparation for territorial expansion indicates that Zionist acceptance of the partition was tactical, aiming to gain initial international legitimacy while setting the stage for further conquests.

At the time of the partition plan, Palestinians lacked the military organization and resources comparable to the Jewish community. The Jewish community had well-trained and well-armed paramilitary groups like the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi, which had been preparing for military confrontation. In contrast, the Palestinian Arab community was largely unorganized militarily and was suffering from political divisions and lack of effective leadership.

Given this disparity in military strength, the Palestinians posed no real threat to the Jewish community. Their rejection of the partition plan was driven by legitimate concerns over losing their homes and lands to a disproportionate partition, not by an intent to eradicate the Jewish community. The subsequent events of 1948, including the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in what became known as the Nakba, underscored the fears that the partition plan had exacerbated.

Claim 8: “Israel needs to control certain areas in Palestine for security reasons.”

Response:

The assertion that Israel needs to control certain areas in Palestine for security reasons is often used to justify the occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories. While security is a legitimate concern for any state, the argument overlooks several critical issues regarding human rights, international law, and the feasibility of sustainable peace.

The control of Palestinian territories has led to widespread human rights violations. Restrictions on movement, including checkpoints and roadblocks, severely impact the daily lives of Palestinians, hindering their access to essential services like healthcare, education, and employment. The construction of the separation barrier, declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004, further exacerbates these hardships by cutting through Palestinian communities and agricultural lands (International Court of Justice, 2004).

Under international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention , the annexation of territory acquired by force is prohibited. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338  call for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The continued occupation and settlement expansion violate these resolutions and undermine the legal basis for Israel’s security claims.

Effective security does not necessitate permanent control over another people’s land. International examples, such as peacekeeping forces and demilitarized zones, offer viable alternatives to direct military occupation. These measures can provide security assurances while respecting the sovereignty and rights of Palestinians.

The ongoing control and settlement expansion in the West Bank undermine the prospects for a two-state solution, which is widely regarded as the most viable path to lasting peace. Settlements not only disrupt the territorial contiguity needed for a Palestinian state but also inflame tensions and mistrust between the two communities.

It is also essential to acknowledge Palestinian security concerns. The presence of Israeli military and settlers often leads to violence and insecurity for Palestinian civilians. A sustainable peace requires addressing the security needs of both Israelis and Palestinians through mutual agreements and international cooperation.

While security is a valid concern, the current approach of territorial control and settlement expansion is neither legal under international law nor conducive to long-term peace. Sustainable security for both Israelis and Palestinians can be better achieved through negotiated agreements, international support, and respecting the rights and sovereignty of all parties involved.

Claim 9: “Palestinian refugees should be settled in Arab countries.”

Response:

The claim that Palestinian refugees should be settled in Arab countries ignores the core issues of justice, legal rights, and historical responsibility. The suggestion that refugees be permanently resettled elsewhere is neither a viable nor a fair solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis.

The right of return for Palestinian refugees is enshrined in international law, specifically in UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which states that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date. This right is a fundamental human right and is recognized by numerous international bodies and human rights organizations.

The Palestinian refugee crisis originated from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and subsequent displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians during the 1967 Six-Day War. Addressing the root cause of this displacement is essential for a just resolution. Shifting the responsibility to other Arab countries does not absolve the historical and moral responsibility of those who caused the displacement.

While some Arab countries have hosted Palestinian refugees for decades, the suggestion to settle them permanently in these countries overlooks significant challenges. Many host countries face their own economic and social issues and lack the resources to fully integrate large refugee populations.

Additionally, many Palestinian refugees and their descendants maintain a strong connection to their homeland and wish to return rather than be permanently resettled elsewhere.

Settling Palestinian refugees in Arab countries would deprive them of their right to return to their ancestral homes and perpetuate their statelessness. This solution fails to address their political rights and the aspiration for self-determination. The right to return is also about preserving their identity, heritage, and connection to the land from which they were displaced.

Historical precedents demonstrate that durable solutions for refugees typically involve the option of return, local integration, or resettlement in a third country, with return being a preferred solution when feasible. This approach is consistent with international norms and practices in resolving protracted refugee situations. For example, after the Bosnian War (1992-1995), many refugees were displaced throughout Europe. The Dayton Accords  included provisions for the return of displaced persons to their homes, emphasizing the right of return as a key component of the peace agreement. Following the 1994 genocide, millions of Rwandans fled to neighboring countries. The international community supported efforts for refugees to return to Rwanda, with many successfully repatriating over time. During the Kosovo conflict in 1999, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians were displaced. International efforts, including NATO intervention, focused on enabling their safe return to Kosovo. 

The suggestion that Palestinian refugees be settled in Arab countries is an oversimplification that ignores their legal rights and historical connections to their homeland. A fair and lasting resolution must include the right of return, reparations, and the opportunity for Palestinians to return to their homes if they choose to do so. This approach respects international law, justice, and the refugees’ personal and collective rights.

Claim 10: “Israel has developed the land and economy, benefiting everyone.”

Response:

While Israel has indeed developed its economy and infrastructure, claiming that these developments have benefited everyone residing in Israel/Palestine oversimplifies the situation and ignores significant disparities and adverse impacts on Palestinians.

The economic benefits of Israel’s development have not been equally distributed. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinians face severe economic challenges due to restrictions on movement, limited access to resources, and an economy heavily controlled by Israel. According to the World Bank, the Palestinian territories suffer from high unemployment rates, particularly among youth and women, and a stagnant economy exacerbated by blockades and restricted access to markets (World Bank, 2018). Resource allocation is another area of significant inequality. Water distribution, for example, is heavily skewed in favor of Israeli settlements. Palestinians often face water shortages, while nearby settlements enjoy abundant supplies. The World Bank reports that Israelis, on average, use significantly more water per capita than Palestinians, highlighting a stark disparity in resource access (World Bank, 2020).

Even before Israel’s massacres in Gaza that plausibly amount to a genocide (International Court of Justice, 2024), Israel’s blockade of Gaza already had a devastating effect on its economy and living conditions. According to the United Nations, the blockade has led to widespread poverty, food insecurity, and a lack of basic services. The restriction on the movement of goods and people severely hampers economic development and the ability of Palestinians to engage in trade and employment.

The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has further compounded economic hardships for Palestinians. Land confiscation and the construction of settlements disrupt Palestinian agriculture and livelihoods. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA, 2021) reports that settlements and the associated infrastructure restrict Palestinian access to their land, contributing to economic marginalization.

Economic development should not come at the cost of human rights. The occupation and policies that accompany it often involve human rights violations, including home demolitions, land confiscations, and restrictions on movement, which negatively impact Palestinian communities.

While Israel has developed its land and economy, these benefits have not been equitably shared with the Palestinian population. Economic development has often come at the expense of Palestinian rights and livelihoods, leading to significant disparities and hardships. A sustainable and just development must ensure equitable access to resources, opportunities, and respect for the rights of all people in the region.

Claim 11:”Palestinians cannot use violence to change the status quo.”

Response:

The claim that Palestinians cannot use violence to change the status quo simplifies the complex realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and overlooks the historical and legal context of resistance under occupation. International law, including the Geneva Conventions, recognizes the right of occupied peoples to resist occupation. This resistance is not confined to nonviolent means, though nonviolent resistance is widely encouraged and practiced. The struggle of Palestinians for self-determination has included both violent and nonviolent actions, shaped by decades of occupation, displacement, and denial of rights.

Historically, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 involved the use of violence and massacres against Palestinians. Events like the Deir Yassin massacre and others led to the forced displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians, an event known as the Nakba. These actions were part of a broader strategy to create a Jewish state, often at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population. The legitimacy of Israel’s statehood is contested by many due to the manner in which it was established.

Nonviolent resistance has been a significant aspect of Palestinian efforts to change the status quo. The First Intifada, for example, involved widespread civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts. Another significant example is the Great March of Return, which began in 2018. This series of protests along the Gaza-Israel border aimed to highlight the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and end the blockade of Gaza. Despite facing severe military responses that led to the deaths of 241 Palestinians and injuries to 10,000 more, these protests have largely been nonviolent, emphasizing the peaceful dimensions of Palestinian resistance.

Today, initiatives like the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement seek to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to end the occupation and respect Palestinian rights.

Critically, the use of force by the Israeli state, including military operations, collective punishment, and human rights abuses, also plays a significant role in perpetuating the conflict. Addressing the violence and oppression faced by Palestinians is crucial for any meaningful change in the status quo.

Focusing solely on Palestinian violence while ignoring the broader context of occupation and systemic injustice fails to address the root causes of the conflict. A just and lasting resolution requires acknowledging the legitimate grievances of Palestinians, promoting nonviolent resistance, and addressing the structural inequalities that sustain the status quo.

Claim 12: “Israel has no problem with Palestinians but only with Hamas and other military groups.”

Response:

The claim that Israel has no problem with Palestinians but only with Hamas and other military groups misrepresents the conflict and ignores the broader issues of occupation and systemic injustice that affect all Palestinians.

Hamas, which was founded in 1987, is indeed a relatively recent player in the long history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the conflict predates the existence of Hamas by several decades. The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories began in 1948, long before Hamas was established. The occupation has led to widespread displacement, human rights violations, and systemic inequality for Palestinians, contributing to ongoing tensions and violence.

The argument that peace can be achieved if the occupation disappears highlights a critical point. The root of the conflict is the broader issues of occupation, land rights, and self-determination. Ending the occupation and addressing these fundamental issues are essential steps toward achieving a lasting peace. The existence of Hamas is only a symptom of these deeper issues, not their cause.

There have been numerous attempts at peace negotiations, but these efforts have often failed to address the core issues of the occupation and Palestinian rights. Genuine peace can only be achieved by addressing these issues, which include ending the occupation, ensuring equal rights for all, and providing a fair and just solution for Palestinian refugees. It is also important to acknowledge that in April (2024), Hamas announced that they are willing to demilitarize and become a political party without an armed force in exchange for an independent Palestine state established along pre-1967 borders, Israel did not agree to these terms and instead pressed on with its invasion of Rafah (The Associated Press, April 2024 )

The narrative that Israel’s problem is only with Hamas and not with Palestinians as a whole fails to acknowledge the broader context of occupation and systemic injustice. Peace cannot be achieved without addressing these root causes. While Hamas’s actions have contributed to the violence, the occupation and denial of Palestinian rights are fundamental issues that must be resolved to create a sustainable and just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Conclusion

The examination of Zionist claims reveals a systematic attempt to distort historical facts and undermine Palestinian rights. These claims fall apart under scrutiny. These narratives ignore the reality of forced displacement, the ongoing occupation, and the persistent denial of basic human rights to Palestinians.

The aim of this essay has been to expose these distortions and provide a factual, well-documented counter-narrative. It is not to convince those who are deeply entrenched in their support for the occupation but to prevent others from being misled by these fallacies. The Zionist approach often relies on misinformation and selective historical interpretation to justify actions that are fundamentally unjust and in violation of international law.

Palestinians have a legitimate right to resist occupation and demand justice. The occupation, which predates Hamas and other militant groups, is the root cause of the conflict. Ending this occupation and recognizing the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Palestinians is essential for any path to peace. Nonviolent resistance, such as the First Intifada and the Great March of Return, alongside international advocacy, highlights the Palestinian commitment to justice and human rights.

True peace and security can only be achieved by addressing the core issues of the conflict: ending the occupation, ensuring equal rights, and acknowledging the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The continued portrayal of Israel as a state merely defending itself against terrorism ignores the systemic violence and oppression inflicted upon Palestinians. A just resolution requires a commitment to truth, equality, and the dismantling of the structures that sustain the occupation.

This essay stands in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for justice and self-determination. By dismantling the myths perpetuated by Zionist narratives, we aim to contribute to a more honest and just discourse, paving the way for a future where Palestinians can live in freedom and dignity, free from occupation and oppression.

Notes

[1] More details can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#:~:text=From%20the%201880s%20to%20the,these%20areas%20were%20sparsely%20populated. 

 

Reference

Ben-Gurion Letter. (1937). Letter from David Ben-Gurion. Retrieved from https://www.palestineremembered.com/download/B-G%20LetterTranslation.pdf

Benny Morris. (2004). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press.

British Mandate. (1922). Census of Palestine 1922. Jerusalem: Government of Palestine. https://ecf.org.il/media_items/1086

Dayton Agreement. (1995). General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Dayton-Accords

Fischbach, M. R. (2000). Records of dispossession: Palestinian refugee property and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Columbia University Press.

Geneva Convention. (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf

Government of Palestine. (1946). A survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Vol. I). Retrieved from https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/a_su/A%20SURVEY%20OF%20PALESTINE%20DEC%201945-JAN%201946%20VOL%20I.pdf

International Court of Justice. (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Khalidi, R. (1997). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press.

Khalidi, R. (2007). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press.

Khalidi, W. (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies.

Manna’, A. (2001). The Palestinians in the Twentieth Century: An Updated and Expanded Edition. Institute for Palestine Studies.

Miller, J. M., & Hayes, J. H. (1986). A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Westminster John Knox Press.

Morris, B. (2004). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press.

Ottoman Census. (1878). Ottoman Census Records. Istanbul: Ottoman Archives.

Peel Commission. (1937). Peel Commission full report. Retrieved from https://ecf.org.il/media_items/290

Segev, T. (2000). One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. Henry Holt and Company.

The Associated Press, April 2024: https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438

Twain, M. (1869). The Innocents Abroad. Hartford: American Publishing Company.

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Palestine — Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator, December 11, 1948.

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2021). Humanitarian Impact of Settlements in Palestinian Territories.

United Nations Security Council. (1967). Resolution 242. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SCRes242%281967%29.pdf

United Nations Security Council. (1973). Resolution 338. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SCR338%281973%29.pdf

United Nations: Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). (1947, September 3). Retrieved from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/united-nations-special-committee-on-palestine-unscop#chapt2

World Bank. (2018). Securing Water for Development in West Bank and Gaza. Retrieved from

World Bank. (2020). Economic Monitoring Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee.

[PDF]