Ten Myths About Israel

Key Takeaways

1. Palestine Was Not an Empty Land; It Was a Thriving Society

The myth is the depiction of Palestine as an empty, arid, almost desert-like land that was cultivated by the arriving Zionists.

A vibrant society. Before the arrival of Zionism, Palestine was a thriving Arab society, mostly Muslim, with vibrant urban centers and a rich agricultural industry. It was not a desert waiting to be cultivated, but a pastoral country undergoing modernization and nationalization. The population was around half a million, with a small percentage of Jews who were mostly resistant to Zionist ideas.

Ottoman legacy. The Ottoman period, lasting 400 years, left a significant legacy in Palestine, including legal systems, land registries, and architectural gems. The society was not isolated but part of the wider Ottoman Empire, interacting with other cultures and undergoing modernization. The local elite were developing a national identity, seeking autonomy and independence.

Nationalism before Zionism. Palestinian nationalism developed before the arrival of Zionism, influenced by local and external dynamics. The educated elite embraced ideas of self-determination, leading to the formation of Muslim-Christian societies and a growing sense of national identity. The land was clearly defined as a geopolitical and cultural entity, with its own dialect, customs, and traditions.

2. The "People Without a Land" Myth Was a Christian, Not Jewish, Invention

Zionism, as we can see, was therefore a Christian project of colonization before it became a Jewish one.

Christian roots of Zionism. The idea of Jews returning to Palestine was initially a Christian project, particularly among Protestants, who saw it as part of a divine scheme for the end of time. This belief was often intertwined with anti-Semitic sentiments, with some hoping for Jewish conversion or removal from Europe. Figures like Lord Shaftesbury actively promoted Jewish settlement in Palestine for both religious and strategic reasons.

British imperial interests. The British government, under figures like Lord Palmerston, saw the restoration of Jews to Palestine as a way to strengthen the Ottoman Empire and further British strategic interests in the region. This proto-Zionism was a blend of religious fervor, anti-Semitism, and imperial ambition, setting the stage for future dispossession of Palestinians.

Early Zionist settlers. The early Zionist settlers, while often portrayed as returning to their ancestral homeland, were in fact a diverse group with varying motivations. Many were influenced by socialist and nationalist ideas, and their arrival was often met with resistance from the local Palestinian population who recognized the threat to their own existence.

3. Zionism Is a Political Ideology, Not Synonymous with Judaism

I try to refute this equation through an historical assessment of Jewish attitudes to Zionism and an analysis of the Zionist manipulation of Judaism for colonial and, later, strategic reasons.

Zionism as a minority view. Zionism was not a universally accepted idea among Jews. Many religious leaders, secular Jews, and socialists opposed it, viewing it as a form of secularization, a threat to their loyalty to their homelands, or a distraction from the real issues of anti-Semitism. Reform Jews, for example, rejected the idea of a Jewish nation and removed references to a return to Palestine from their prayers.

Zionist manipulation of Judaism. Zionist leaders strategically used the Bible to justify their colonization project, reinterpreting religious texts to support their political goals. They secularized Jewish life while simultaneously using the Bible as a justification for their actions. This manipulation of religious texts was used to garner support and legitimize their claims to the land.

Socialist Zionism. Even socialist Zionists, who were often secular, used the Bible to justify their colonization project, seeing it as a way to return to a mythical past of Hebrew farmers and shepherds. This fusion of socialism and colonialism created a unique ideology that prioritized the needs of the settlers over the rights of the indigenous population.

4. Zionism Is a Settler Colonial Project, Not a National Liberation Movement

The myth is that Zionism is a liberal national liberation movement while the counterargument frames it as a colonialist, indeed a settler colonial, project similar to those seen in South Africa, the Americas, and Australia.

Settler colonialism defined. Zionism is a settler colonial project, similar to those in the Americas, South Africa, and Australia, where settlers seek to take over land and displace the indigenous population. Unlike classical colonialism, settler colonialism aims to create a new homeland, not just exploit resources. This involves the "logic of elimination," which can include genocide, ethnic cleansing, or oppressive regimes.

Palestinian resistance. The Palestinian resistance to Zionism is an anticolonialist struggle, not simply a conflict between two equal sides. The Palestinians were not motivated by hatred of Jews, but by the desire to protect their homeland from a colonial project that sought to displace them. The early settlers were initially welcomed by Palestinians, but this changed when it became clear that the settlers intended to replace, not coexist with, the local population.

Dehumanization and elimination. The Zionist project, like other settler colonial projects, relied on the dehumanization of the indigenous population. This allowed the settlers to justify their actions, including the dispossession and expulsion of Palestinians. The idea of "Hebrew labor" was a way to exclude Palestinians from the labor market and create a separate economy for the settlers.

5. Palestinians Did Not Voluntarily Leave in 1948; They Were Expelled

Chapter 5 revisits the well-known mythologies of 1948, and in particular aims to remind readers why the claim of voluntary Palestinian flight has been successfully debunked by professional historiography.

The myth of voluntary flight. The claim that Palestinians voluntarily left their homes in 1948 is a myth. Zionist leaders had long planned for the transfer of Palestinians, and the 1948 war provided the opportunity to implement this plan. The expulsion was not a result of Arab leaders calling for Palestinians to leave, but a systematic campaign of fear, intimidation, and violence.

Plan Dalet. Plan Dalet, a military plan developed by the Zionist leadership, outlined the methods for expelling Palestinians from their homes. This included the destruction of villages, the expulsion of populations, and the use of force against any resistance. The plan was implemented before the Arab armies entered Palestine, demonstrating that the expulsion was a premeditated act.

Ethnic cleansing. The events of 1948 constitute an act of ethnic cleansing, defined as the forced removal of a population from a territory to create a homogenous ethnic space. This involved the destruction of 531 villages and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The consequences of this ethnic cleansing continue to affect the region today.

6. The 1967 War Was Not a "War of No Choice" but a Calculated Land Grab

I claim that this was part of Israel’s desire to complete the takeover of Palestine that had almost been completed in the 1948 war.

Missed opportunity of 1948. The Israeli political and military elite viewed the 1948 war as a missed opportunity to take over all of historical Palestine. They saw the West Bank as a crucial part of their vision for a greater Israel and sought opportunities to rectify what they considered a "fatal historical mistake." The planning for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1948, not in 1967.

Premeditated war. The 1967 war was not a war of "no choice," but a calculated move to complete the takeover of Palestine. The Israeli leadership had been planning for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for years, and the events of 1967 provided the perfect opportunity to implement their plans. The war was not a response to Jordanian aggression, but a strategic move to expand Israeli territory.

Occupation as a goal. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was not a temporary measure, but a long-term goal of the Israeli government. The decisions made in the immediate aftermath of the war, including the denial of citizenship to Palestinians and the establishment of settlements, demonstrate that Israel intended to maintain control over the territories indefinitely.

7. Israel Is Not a Democracy; It's an Ethnocracy with Apartheid Policies

Is Israel a democratic state, I ask, or is it a non-democratic entity? I make the case for the latter by examining the status of the Palestinians inside Israel and in the occupied territories.

Discrimination against Palestinian citizens. Before 1967, Israel subjected its Palestinian citizens to military rule, denying them basic human and civil rights. This included restrictions on movement, land ownership, and employment. The state also implemented discriminatory laws, such as the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to Jews while denying it to Palestinians.

Occupation as a form of dictatorship. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is a form of dictatorship, where millions of Palestinians are denied basic rights and subjected to military rule. The Israeli army has absolute power in the occupied territories, and Palestinians have no recourse against their actions. The occupation is not a temporary measure, but a system of control designed to maintain Israeli dominance.

Apartheid policies. The Israeli government implements apartheid policies, including the construction of settlements, the expropriation of land, and the denial of equal rights to Palestinians. These policies are designed to maintain a Jewish majority and control over the land, at the expense of the Palestinian population. The system of checkpoints, walls, and permits creates a system of segregation and oppression.

8. The Oslo Accords Were a Failed Attempt to Deepen the Occupation

After nearly a quarter of a century since the signing of the accord, we have a good perspective on the fallacies connected to the process and can ask whether it was a peace accord that failed, or a successful Israeli ploy to deepen the occupation.

Oslo as a strategic ploy. The Oslo Accords were not a genuine peace process, but a strategic ploy by Israel to deepen its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The accords created a system of Palestinian autonomy that was ultimately controlled by Israel, allowing it to maintain its dominance while shifting the responsibility for security to the Palestinian Authority.

Partition and exclusion. The Oslo process was based on the principle of partition, which has historically failed to bring peace to the region. The accords also excluded the issue of Palestinian refugees, further marginalizing the Palestinian people. The final agreement offered by Israel at Camp David in 2000 was a non-starter, offering a demilitarized Palestinian state with no real sovereignty.

Failure of the process. The Oslo process failed because it did not address the root causes of the conflict, including the occupation, the settlements, and the refugee issue. The process was designed to maintain the status quo, not to create a just and lasting peace. The failure of Oslo led to the Second Intifada, which further deepened the conflict.

9. Gaza Is a Humanitarian Crisis Created by Israeli Policies, Not Just Hamas

A similar perspective can be now applied to the Gaza Strip and the still widely accepted myth that the misery of the people there is due to the terrorist nature of the Hamas.

Gaza as a mega-prison. The Gaza Strip is a humanitarian crisis created by Israeli policies, not just the actions of Hamas. The Israeli blockade of Gaza has created a situation of extreme poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to basic necessities. The Strip is a densely populated area with limited resources, and the Israeli blockade has made life there unbearable.

Israeli responsibility. Israel is responsible for the suffering of the people of Gaza, not just Hamas. The Israeli military has launched numerous attacks on Gaza, causing widespread destruction and civilian casualties. The Israeli government has also implemented policies that have crippled the Gazan economy and made it impossible for the population to live a normal life.

Incremental genocide. The Israeli policy towards Gaza can be described as an incremental genocide, a slow and systematic destruction of the Palestinian population. This includes the use of excessive force, the destruction of infrastructure, and the imposition of a blockade that has created a humanitarian crisis. The Israeli government has shown a willingness to use any means necessary to maintain its control over Gaza, regardless of the consequences for the Palestinian population.

10. The Two-State Solution Is a Dead End; A New Paradigm Is Needed

Finally, in the tenth chapter I challenge the myth that the two-states solution is the only way forward.

The two-state solution is a myth. The two-state solution is a dead end, a failed attempt to resolve the conflict that has only deepened the occupation and marginalized the Palestinian people. The reality on the ground, with the expansion of settlements and the construction of the wall, makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. The two-state solution is a way for Israel to maintain its control over the land while avoiding the responsibility of granting equal rights to Palestinians.

Need for a new paradigm. A new paradigm is needed to address the conflict, one that moves beyond the failed logic of partition and recognizes the rights of all people living in the region. This includes the right of return for Palestinian refugees, equal rights for all citizens, and an end to the occupation. The focus should be on justice and equality, not on maintaining the status quo.

One-state solution. The one-state solution, while controversial, offers a potential path forward that recognizes the reality of the situation on the ground. This would involve the creation of a democratic state that includes all of its inhabitants, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. This would require a fundamental shift in the way the conflict is viewed, but it may be the only way to achieve a lasting peace.

Last updated: January 24, 2025

Report Issue