This is Oren Almog. Oren lost his eyesight and five relatives in the suicide bombing in the Maxim Restaurant in Haifa in 2003. Although he is exempt from army service, Oren insisted on being enlisted into the Israeli Army.
Oren said after swearing his allegiance to the State of Israel, the People of Israel and the Army of Israel that ‘as someone who was hit pretty hard by terrorism, (he) is proud to serve an organisation that aims to protect the security of Israel, to prevent terrorism and to protect its residents’.
Oren is a true hero.
Assessments of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often come down to a simple comparison: How many have been killed on each side. No one disputes that, by this simple calculation, Palestinian deaths outnumber those endured by the Israelis – by a lot. That approach, however, invokes a widely used mathematical idiom: statistics lie.
According to a study by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, between 2000 and early 2003, nearly 2,000 Palestinians had been killed compared to 750 Israelis. But a closer, more robust look at the numbers uncovers the flaws of that effortless assessment. Indeed, it is clear that these disproportionate death tolls are due to the fact that there are many more Palestinian combatant deaths than Israeli combatant deaths. Palestinians’ rejection of Israelis’ far superior heath care, along with the Palestinians’ use of human-shields, has widely distorted these numbers in favor of the Palestinians.
The most significant problem with a simple death toll is that it includes deaths of combatants (i.e. terrorists, suicide bombers, etc.). If you remove combatants from the equation and only look at noncombatants (innocent civilians), the tables immediately turn in favor of the Israelis.
According to the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 80% of the Israeli death toll is comprised of innocent civilians. On the Palestinian side, only 45% of those killed are non-combatants. Moreover, 40% of Israelis killed are females, compared with just 5% for Palestinian deaths. The numbers clearly indicate that the Palestinians actually target Israeli noncombatants and females, while Israel focuses solely on those that pose a threat, while at times inadvertently killing innocent civilians.
But even that assessment does not tell the whole story. According to the Jerusalem Post, because “Palestinian medical facilities are unable to treat many of their wounded adequately,” Israel offered the Palestinians their assistance. “The Israeli Health Minister Nissim Dahan has several times offered to treat ‘all Palestinians wounded in the current intifada in Israeli hospitals and at Israeli expense,’ but the Palestinians have not bothered to reply…”
It’s hard to understand why the Palestinians would ever opt to reject this offer. But it is likely driven by the Palestinian leadership’s understanding that when one of their citizens dies, Israel bears the burden. Motives aside, it is clear that many of the Palestinian noncombatant deaths could have been prevented had they accepted Israel’s gracious offer. Indeed, a significant reason for the disparity in deaths between the Israelis and the Palestinians is due to Israel’s far better health care capabilities.
Moreover, Israel displays a firm commitment to protect innocent life, while Palestinian combatants deliberately target innocent civilians and women, as the data suggests. The Israeli Army has a code of ethics. Israeli soldiers must act “out of recognition of the supreme value of human life,” and “do all in [their] power to avoid causing harm to [noncombatants’] lives, bodies, dignity, and property.”
Hamas forces, on the other hand, have been known to surround themselves with innocent civilians, creating human shields, in order to prevent Israel from attacking legitimate military targets. The intention is to tilt public opinion and inflate the number of innocent Palestinians killed by making it impossible for Israel to carry out its missions.
Consider the story of Abu Bilal al-Ja’abeer, told by Ja’abeer himself on Arab television. When Israeli forces targeted his house, they didn’t blindly bomb it. Instead, they alerted Ja’abeer that he had “five minutes to evacuate the house. You and your children.” Ja’abeer proceeded to call in friends and neighbors to form a shield around his house, making it impossible for Israel to carry out its legitimate mission.
This practice, however, is not simply employed as a means of protecting one’s private property. Hamas MP Fathi Hammad said in a speech on February 29, 2008, that “For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry … This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen…” Not only is this method illegal under international law, but Hammad also felt the need to go even further. “We desire death like [the Zionists] desire life,” he concluded.
The Israeli army attempts to save the lives of legitimate military targets, and the Palestinians use that as an opportunity to tilt public opinion by causing more Palestinian deaths. The Israeli army should be praised for respecting the rights of all humans, even those who present a legitimate threat to Israel’s national security. Instead, Israel is the primary source of international opposition and is often tagged as the world’s worst human rights violator.
It’s time we not only educate ourselves before simply grasping onto public opinion, but also stop singling out a nation that should actually be passionately praised. Israel has endured vicious, inaccurate criticism throughout its entire history, and those who perpetuate those claims will only find themselves on the wrong side of history.
“A dubious conference that was scantly reported in the Western media took place in Iran this week, one that should serve as an unambiguous warning sign for proponents of the two-state solution and the prospects for establishing a lasting peace in the region.
The 5th International Conference for Defending the Palestinian Intifada wrapped up this past Sunday, and, like Tehran’s previous Holocaust conferences, boasted a relatively impressive number of high-ranking politicians and scholars from nations around the world. The motto for this year’s conference? “Palestine, home of the Palestinians.”
Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal made clear that the two-state solution is invalid. “Palestinians must resort to resistance no matter how costly it is, until Palestine is free and Israel is destroyed.”
Islamic Jihad Secretary General Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah stated, “We regard the Zionist regime as an occupier which has no legitimacy and is declining in importance.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that “effort must be made to free every span of the lands of this country from the Quds occupying regime (Israel),” calling for the “Zionist occupiers of Palestine” to return to their lands of origin.
Although several disturbing mantras emerged at the conference, the statements above reflect a more threatening, overarching reality: A powerful, belligerent conglomeration of forces continues to object to Israel’s presence, no matter the arrangement the country holds with its neighbors. It would be wise to consider what potential effects these forces could have on the region’s long-term future, and on Israel’s political and security situation.
Proponents of the two-state solution need to understand the serious barrier this minority poses to finding an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps these elements are a “minority” on the world stage, but that minority is sizable and powerful enough to ensure that a fair and peaceful solution is never achieved.
Iran has declared publicly on several occasions that, even if a comprehensive peace agreement were to be reached between Israel and the Palestinians, the country would never recognize Israel. Iran’s’ supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, dismissed Abbas’ statehood bid as it would recognize the ‘cancerous tumor’ as a legitimate entity. He completely dismissed the two-state solution as an acceptable option, even if the Palestinians themselves support the initiative and reach a compromise with Israel.”
