When discussing Israel—a subject that is almost always controversial—misinformation becomes talking points that are repeated ad nauseam and spread as gospel truth.
Videos By Rare
Israel’s critics frequently use buzzwords like “genocide” and “apartheid” to depict a ruthless Israeli government hell-bent on destruction. Such comments are often coupled with statements like, “Jews should know better.” This kind of language is intended to construct an image of Israel that includes the worst elements of fascism and authoritarianism.
But does such politically and emotionally charged language actually have merit beyond stirring up hatred for the Jewish state?
Let’s examine a few.
Israel was obtained by “theft”
A claim often levied against Israel is that the country was obtained through “theft.” However, prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel, the Jewish National Fund was in the business of purchasing land from Arab owners for the future establishment of Israel. These homes and pieces of land were bought as a normal private property transaction, not stolen. No one barged into these homes, threw out the occupants, and simply squatted while proclaiming the land belonged to them, no matter how much this imaginary sequence of events is repeated as truth.
A purchase of private property is not theft.
Israel is guilty of “genocide”
Israel critics often say that as a result of these land purchases, many Arab tenants were told to leave their homes and this should be considered “genocide.” A private purchase of land entitles its owner to do whatever he wishes. If the new landlord wishes to evict his tenants, this is ordinary—and even expected—behavior. If a landlord gives occupants an eviction notice, this is not akin to genocide. There is no systematic mass extermination.
Whatever one thinks of how this chain of event transpired, it is not anything even remotely close to genocide. Comparing it to genocide makes light of actual genocides that occur around the world.
As for as the territory that Israel did not purchase outright—it was won during the Six Days War. During the Six Days War, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt attacked Israel (with backing from other Arab countries). Still, and as the name suggests, Israel was victorious within six days. In fact, Israel was able to lay claim to Gaza and the West Bank by pushing back against its enemies in a clear decisive victory. According to some, Israel’s claim to this land is illegitimate, as it was won in war.
As politically appealing as it seems, no one is advocating for California to be returned to Mexico since territory won in war is somehow null, void, and illegitimate. If land won via war became no longer acceptable, then the map of the modern world would look a lot different.
Israel enforces “apartheid”
Another claim made against Israel is that it is actively committing apartheid. Currently, Israel provides utilities to Gaza, despite Gaza launching rockets at Israel. These utilities are funded by Israeli tax dollars. At the same time that Gaza and is receiving aid at the expense of Israeli tax-payers, it claims that it is entirely independent of Israel, under the jurisdiction of “Palestine.” Yet if Israel cuts utilities to so-called independent Gaza and other territories, it is committing apartheid.
Other superfluous claims of “apartheid” also lack merit when all of the evidence points to the contrary. For example, an Arab judge sentenced the former President of Israel to jail, Arab political parties hold seats in the Knesset, Arabs sit in office in the Knesset, there are Arab ambassadors representing Israel, an Arab Miss Israel, Arab international soccer players representing Israel, road signs are written in English, Hebrew, and Arabic, and Arabs serve openly and proudly in the Israeli Defense Forces in fully integrated units.
These would have been impossible during apartheid era South Africa.
Israel participates in “asymmetric warfare”
Currently, and is always the case when another conflict brews, Israel is chastised for not exercising full restraint. If Israel fires back at any of the attacks, Israel is, by default, in the wrong for not choosing to do nothing. Any act of self-defense on the part of Israel is criticized, no matter the justification.
Right now, the term “asymmetric warfare” is being thrown around in the media to refer to the situation with Gaza. The basis of the “asymmetric warfare” argument holds that since Israel has not suffered as many deaths as Gaza as a result of the rocket attacks, that Israel is therefore acting immorally by retaliating.
Apply the asymmetric warfare logic outside of warfare, and the idea that deaths must somehow equal out is absurd. If an armed intruder enters your home with the expressed intent of killing your family, you do not wait for him to kill your loved ones before making an attack. You also certainly do not disable your home security system, and give up your guns, because it would be “fair” if the intruder at least has a chance to slaughter your family.
It is not immoral, or unjustified, to respond to that threat. Rockets are certainly a threat: especially over 1,780 rockets over the past 13 days at the time of this writing.
The asymmetric warfare argument refuses to acknowledge the defense technology at the disposal of Israel and the intentional lack of defense technology provided by Hamas. Israel, being a country surrounded by enemies on all sides, has invested in defense technology as a requirement for its survival. The most famous of these is called the Iron Dome, which has been destroying approximately 90% of rockets before they could hit their designated targets, i.e. Israeli citizens.
Being able to defend citizens from rockets, and therefore reducing casualties in war, does not make a country immoral. Nor does not make the threats any less of a reality.
While people rightly note the number deaths in Gaza, many fail to understand why, exactly, these people are dying.
Unlike Israel, which has devoted over 5% of its GDP towards fending against existential threats, Hamas welcomes civilian casualties. Hamas uses human shields. As a well-known terrorism tactic, Hamas launches rockets from schools, mosques, hospitals, and children’s playgrounds in hopes of Israel striking back at those locations to kill as many people as possible. Hamas understands that it can garner world sympathy by crying foul on Israel’s actions.
In order to combat this terrorism tactic and reduce the number of civilian casualties in Gaza, Israel has engaged in a campaign of notifying individuals about the rocket attacks in order to vacate the locations through phone calls and leaflet campaigns. Hamas has, however, issued statements urging people to remain in places they know will be attacked for harboring military equipment in order to capitalize on the increased number fatalities for its propaganda.
Israel has even outright stopped operations out of fear of harming children. If a country wanted to commit genocide, the claim alleged against Israel, Israel wouldn’t be warning people to leave before attacking, and certainly wouldn’t call off airstrikes.
Time and time again, Israel has taken the path to peace, only to get more rockets launched its way and the brunt of the blame for the talks falling through. Israel has offered agreements upon agreements, land swaps upon land swamps, just to be told they’re not enough.
The reality of the situation is that Hamas, in its charter, outright calls for the end of Israel and states that its “struggle against the Jews is long-ranging and grave.”
Hamas does not desire peace with Israel; rather, they outspokenly do not want Israel to exist, period.
Some might be inclined to call this genocide too.