The Case for Israel

It is not enough to say that Israel retains the right to defend itself and to retaliate against terrorism, because when Israel has done so in the past, it has been condemned by the international community and the United Nations.

PLO, which was committed to terrorism as the primary means for liberating all of Palestine, had been established before the occupation began.

Even the false argument over why the United States “tilts” toward Israel while the rest of the world is even-handed is often tinged with a not-so-subtle anti-Semitism. “The Jews control America,” it is claimed, and that is why the United States is so pro-Israel.

then by provoking the military to take actions that would inevitably result in the deaths of Palestinian civilians. It worked perfectly, as it had in the past.

Given the expressed goal of these increasingly popular radical groups, those who urge the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, as I do, cannot ignore the realistic possibility that such a state might well continue to support, encourage, or at the very least tolerate continuing terrorism against Israeli civilians in an effort, futile as it migh

But it was a state that was being prevented by Britain, at the demand of the Arabs, from opening its gates to those refugees most in need.

falsely assume that terrorism is part of a cycle of violence rather than a tactic of first choice that has worked for the Palestinians.

Yasser Arafat rejected the Barak proposal, making it clear that he would never surrender the right of more than 4 million Palestinians to return to Israel rather than live in the Palestinian state with compensation.

Would any reasonable nation faced with comparable threats of annihilation have acted differently?