Rebuttal against Daniel Ayalon’s New YouTube Video

I do not know if anyone else is as sick of this stupid hasbara (propaganda) videos by Israeli MK and Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon as I am but I feel the need to retort. Not that this has some profound legitimate points. He picks and chooses convenient lies and exploits them to fit a pathetic political agenda. First notice how all the “Arabs” are wearing Orientalist gear, it sets the racism from the beginning. I shall go point by point.

He says that before 1967 there was conflict, hence the argument is that conflict preceded the occupation. This is a very true point, except that he uses this as a segway to show Arab hatred is ingrained. The conflict did NOT start in 1967, only imbeciles would believe that. The conflict started in 1881 when Zionist Jews decided that Palestine was for them and them only, so as long as that exists there will be no peace. Countries after 1967 simply said enough to this conflict and wished to minimize it, which included a mini state for the Palestinians.

He says the PLO was created in 1964 when the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands. Well again, this is half true. It was in Arab hands, but there are different varieties of Arabs, sorry to inform Daniel Ayalon. They are not a monolithic group, and the Palestinians were still stateless. They were oppressed by the Jordanians and Egyptians, no one denies this. Gaza was a prison under Egyptian rule that was attacked by Israel frequently. The West Bank was illegally annexed territory, no one disputes this. BUT, unfortunately for Ayalon that does not legalize the Israeli occupation, nor does having it be in “Arab” hands somehow legitimize the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations.

He says the West Bank and Gaza had no Israeli presence, hence why would the PLO need to liberate it. First, they had constant raids, attacks, bombings and artillery shelling. Second they were liberating it from Jordanian and Egyptian control, in addition to liberating the Palestinians in what became Israel, not that hard. “The PLO emblem gives us the answer” he says. As if totally ignoring the fact that Israel, to this day on its maps show the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of the State of Israel, but ok let us ignore hypocrisy and double standards, there was a holocaust. “The PLO was created to wipe Israel off the map, a goal clearly stated in their charter.” This is curious considering Nasser created the PLO originally with the desire to control the issue and seem to be the champion of the Palestinians, much to the dismay of King Hussein. Again Arabs are not monolithic unfortunately for Ayalon, and they have internal qualms that manifest themselves into playing the “I love the Palestinians more” card. It seems Ayalon did not read Likud’s charter which says “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs” and that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, contrary to international law. The difference is the PLO took this out of their charter in the early 90s, and Likud is the ruling party in Israel and has not.

“This was a continuation of the longstanding policy of Arabs saying no, no to the national liberation and self determination for Jews.” Back in the 1910s, the Arab movement at the time gave credence and respect to the mission of Zionism for self determination of Jews in Palestine. It offered proposals for joint brotherhood to achieve this goal. But again, one Arab is 350 million Arabs, so ipso facto, it never happened.

“No to recognizing the ancestral Jewish homeland.” Actually it is the complete opposite. Most Arabs, and organizations recognized that Jews had a connection to this land, but lets handpick random quotes of Arabs that fit his point, again ipso facto, all Arabs. Muslims, by religion have to accept this, if they believe in the Quran, and most Arabs speak of Jews as cousins and/or brothers, but well, lets ignore that.

“In 1937, the Peel Commission (Ayalon with a map of Jordan and Palestine, which was divided in 1923) gave Jews 4% of their historic homeland.” This is just pure propaganda, Jews were not in Jordan even before the “division of Palestine” and Jordan was not up for debate in 1937, it is what people call a “non issue.” “The Palestinian leadership, Husseini still said no, and found a partner whose vision was close to his own.” First, there is no credible evidence to show he was the credible leader, he was barely able to muster followers or exert what anyone would call sovereignty over people or land. Second, he was put in by the British and did not want to give up 21% of actual Palestine, which was under the Peel Commission because Jews only owned 5% of the land at that time. Lastly this Husseini-Hitler card is always played because anyone who contacted the Nazis was a Nazi and believed in the Holocaust. But we ignore the Stern Gang and Lehi who were Jewish terrorist organizations who did the exact same thing. Ipso facto, Palestinians love Hitler, simple enough, next?

“In 1947 the UN voted for partition that gave the Arabs far more than the West Bank, but the Arabs still said no while the Jews said yes. The Arabs then went on a war of extermination” Again, true if you ignore everything else. It offered 67% of the indigenous population 43% of their land, the worse of the land, and gave 56% of the land to the Jews who were 33% of the population, with 1% going to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Jews owned under 7% of the land in a non-continuous area and said yes only after the Palestinians said no. In addition Ben Gurion had stated this was a means to an end and in no way were the borders legitimate or sacred to him or the Zionist movement. The Arab states did not join the war until May 15th, 1948, 7 months after the Zionists ethnically cleansed over 300,000 Palestinians from what became Israel. King Abdullah, who had a secret agreement with the Zionists to divide Palestine and was the leader to enter Palestine with the strongest military, only joined the war after the Deir Yassin massacre, but as he said “the deal is still on.”

“Israel still saw no peace.” Israel from 1948 until 1956 killed, ethnically cleansed, and destroyed whole Palestinian villages during this time. Thousands of unarmed Palestinians were killed trying to access their land and goods that were stolen from them in the 1948 war. In addition, during this time of “reprisal attacks” by Israel, the IDF killed almost as many, if not more Israelis than the Palestinians did, by accident shooting thinking they were Palestinian “infiltrators” (a cute term meaning, unarmed Palestinians wishing to retrieve their goods and crops). “The Arabs used the West Bank as a launching pad (with rockets flying int he background, which never happened) to attack Israel.” Jordan, with cooperation from Israel stopped thousands of Palestinians trying to enter Israel during this time and the Jordanians were given credit on dozens of occasions for “stopping the infiltration.”

“Israel took over the West Bank in a war of ‘self defense.” There is simply nothing to actually legitimize this sentence because it does not exist. At no time during deliberations of UN Resolution 242 did the topic of Israeli self defense come up or be considered by the writers, because they knew it was not true. Israel’s war was drawn up months, if not years in advance and was pre-emptive, which is illegal under international law, plain and simple, no debate.

“After the war, the Arab League deflected all attempts at peace.” A simple reading proves this to be factually misinterpreted at best. Nasser, Hussein, and the leader of Saudi Arabia at the time openly called for diplomacy in Khartoum but were voted down by Algeria and Iraq, two countries who had nothing to do with the conflict. Egypt and Jordan were the two most important parties to the issue and they openly spoke for diplomacy and kept back channels open to Israelis the entire time. Israel on the other hand, never, N-E-V-E-R, offered full withdrawal from all territories occupied by it in the war. It offered the Sinai and Golan Heights back, nothing else, ever. The 3 no’s were used as a tool to ensure no party went independently into negotiations with Israel. It was all or nothing, with UN mediation only, a simple reading of the Khartoum text would understand this, but reading is overrated right Ayalon?

“Lets fast forward to 1993 when the Palestinians finally say yes, and Israel gave control to a Palestinian government it helped to establish, but despite this the Palestinians said no.” The Palestinians said yes in 1976 (and reaffirmed constantly, most explicitly in 1988 at Algiers), their first chance to do so after 1967 when in January they wrote a UN resolution for FULL peace based on FULL withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This has been reaffirmed every year since. Israel gave 17% by the end of the 90s to an AUTHORITY, not a government, that was meant to dissolve in 1999. The Palestinians did as an Israeli report stated “a better security job than we ever could have done.” In addition, Oslo violence began with Baruch Goldstein murdering 29 Palestinians and injuring over 150 more in 1994, before the first suicide bombing occurred, but let us ignore that.

“In the next 5 years, Israel saw a significant increase in terrorist attacks.” Yes, and at the same time, Palestinians saw a significant increase in bombing, shootings, and arrests, which were many times that of Israelis. Yasser Arafat said “we want to eliminate Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state.” Sure, I do not doubt that he said that but look at what he calls a Palestinian state, from the 1970s on wards, a “secular democratic state where Palestinians and Jews live in peace.”

“In 2000, Israeli PM Barak offers the Palestinians 93% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip but the answer is still no. (at this point, the ‘Arab’ in the video opens up his shirt and shows a suicide bomb, no racism there of course, just facts).” First Ehud Barak never offered 93% of the West Bank, a simple reading of Ron Pundak, a head Israeli negotiator, shows the map: a Palestinian state with no borders of its own, cut into pieces with most settlements going to Israel. Shlomo Ben-Ami, in his book after the collapse, said this map was the only one ever presented to the Palestinians at Camp David and that ‘no Palestinian could ever accept this.’

He then skips to 2005 which is convenient considering Israel killed 75 Palestinians while only 4 Israelis died in the first month of the 2nd Intifada, and suicide bombing did not begin until after 5 months, but let’s ignore that, truth hurts. “Israel uprooted 8500 Israelis from Gaza hoping to advance peace, again the Palestinians say no.” There is almost nothing correct with this statement. There were not 8500, it is closer to 7500, and more than half left before the evacuation. When the IDF came there were 8500 because settlers from the West Bank infiltrated with IDF help to make a “trauma” out of the issue, equating it with the motto ‘never again,’ the same as the holocaust. Ariel Sharon evacuated these territories to get US pressure off a possible withdraw from the West Bank. As Sharon said “our evacuation in Gaza is to strengthen Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank).” This had nothing to do with peace, not even Sharon, veggie or not, would admit this. What the Palestinians were saying no to is beyond my intellect I guess because it makes no sense. Fatah asked for the move to be coordinated with PA forces to ensure Hamas does not gain control, which Israel did not do. Hamas hailed the evacuation as a victory, so what did the Palestinians (all of them mind you) say no to exactly?

“Rocket attacks against Israelis went up 500%.” Yes this is generally true, but the loss of life also went down since settler targets were no longer available, they had to shoot further, barely reaching and doing less actual damage to life.

“In 2006, Olmert gives Palestinians almost all of their demands.” First, not saying which, considering Olmert never offered 100% contrary to the cartoons pie, and refugees were barely considered. Jerusalem was divided along ethnic lines, and the issue of the Dome of the Rock was never officially settled Ayalon is talking about what Clayton Swisher talks about in his book “The Palestine Papers” (brief summary on the link). The Palestinians offered Israel most of East Jerusalem, Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and the Gush Etzion bloc, negated the right of return for the vast majority of Palestinians, and more, yet the Israelis said in Ayalon’s intellectual speak, NO!

I will not bother with the conclusions, they are just a reiteration of the lies he perpetuated throughout the video. Again Daniel Ayalon, I offer you what you offered Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator who negotiated away Palestine to Olmert, a debate, anytime anywhere on any of the topics, or all, that you discuss in this video, or your last lie. My name is Christopher Whitman, I live in Ramallah in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and am a student at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. You could easily contact me, and we could even do it at the University if you like. Anytime, anywhere, on any or all of these topics. I am waiting for your phone call.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s