One of the growing dangers emerging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rampant misinformation on social media, in the news, and on college campuses and many classrooms across the country. Here I clarify the most common falsehoods about Israel making the rounds today.

As Israel continues to defend itself against the terrorist group Hamas, a war of information is unfolding around the world. One of the slogans most commonly used claims Israel is a “settler colonial enterprise.” By charging Israel with colonizing Palestinians, Hamas and its supporters are manipulating the cause of racial justice to advance their terrorist goals – all while hoping no one notices Israel has been the homeland of the Jewish people since the Bronze Age.

Between 1901 and 1947, the Jewish National Fund raised money in Temples and Synagogues all over the world to purchase land in what is now Israel, particularly Judea/Samaria (aka, The West Bank). These purchases were sold by wealthy, absentee Arab landowners, only too happy to sell “worthless desert land” to the “hapless Jews,” at exorbitant prices. There are land deeds and other documentation in the Israel Museum to prove this. Those lands were settled by Jewish families (who using science and modern fertilization irrigation techniques, turned “worthless desert” into productive agricultural land) and and this remained the case until May 1948, when the first Israel/Arab war began. Jordan captured and occupied that territory, which  they renamed,”The West Bank”.

This condition ended in June 1967, when repelling another unprovoked attack by superior Arab forces, Israel liberated Samaria/Judea, and restored it to it’s rightful and legal owners.

Then politics intervened. Even though prior to 1947 land in Samaria/Judea was purchased for Israel by the Jewish National Fund, and that that territory had been captured and occupied by Jordan from 1948 until 1967, those inconvenient facts were forgotten and much of the international community decided that Israel was “occupying” that land.

For decades, Israel’s detractors have appealed to consensus, asserting that settlements are illegal because the entire international community agrees they are illegal.  The U.S. recently moved it’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thus recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. By this dissent  the U.S. has destroyed both the consensus and the frail arguments that relied on it.

The four-page 1978 memo, written by legal adviser Herbert Hansell, was hardly a thorough study. It painted with broad strokes across several issues and cited no precedent for its key conclusions. Most important, its legal analysis of occupation and settlements has never been applied, by the U.S. or anyone else, to any other comparable situation.

Hansell’s memo took two analytic steps. First, it concluded that Israel was an “occupying power” in the West Bank. Next, it invoked an obscure provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Hansell concluded that Jews who have moved past the Green Line into disputed territory have somehow been “deported or transferred” there by the state of Israel, even though most of these families had lived there prior to the 1948 Arab/Israel War.

Under international law, occupation occurs when a country takes over the sovereign territory of another country. But the West Bank was never part of Jordan, which seized it in 1949 and ethnically cleansed its entire Jewish population. Nor was it ever the site of an Arab Palestinian state.

Moreover, a country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title, and Israel has the strongest claim to the land. International law holds that a new country inherits the borders of the prior geopolitical unit in that territory. Israel was preceded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, whose borders included the West Bank. Hansell’s memo fails to discuss this principle for determining borders, which has been applied everywhere from Syria and Lebanon to post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine.

Even on its own terms, the memo’s conclusions no longer apply. Because occupation is part of the law of war, Hansell wrote, the state of occupation would end if Israel entered into a peace treaty with Jordan. In 1994 Jerusalem and Amman signed a full and unconditional peace treaty, but the State Department neglected to update the memo.

Even if there were an occupation, the notion that it creates an impermeable demographic bubble around the territory—no Jew can move in—has no basis in the history or application of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Almost every prolonged occupation since 1949—from the Allies’ 40-year administration of West Berlin to Turkey’s 2016 occupation of northern Syria—has seen population movement into the occupied territory. In none of these cases has the U.S., or the United Nations, ever claimed a violation of this Geneva Convention provision.

We can’t have one international law for one country and another for the rest of the world.

“The people who are talking about apartheid in Israel are talking nonsense.”  So declared a black South African pastor who, after an accident, found himself hospitalized in Israel alongside Palestinian Muslims and Jews, all receiving equal care.

Characterizing Israel as an apartheid state is a charge frequently heard from the numerous churches, religious organizations, and NGOs that endorse the BDS movement.  It often appears explicitly in their official documents and resolutions. The “apartheid state” mischaracterization is one of the presupposed assumptions underlying the BDS movement, a complete fiction that is uncritically accepted by many of its followers as well as many naïve church-goers.

Other religious leaders in the BDS movement are not naïve but simply dishonest and cynical ideologues who want to bring down Israel the same way economic tactics succeeded in bringing down the old South Africa in the 1990s. More to the point, they really don’t want to change Israel. Their real agenda is to eliminate Israel entirely.  Author Gerald Steinberg writes, “The attempt to label Israel as an illegitimate ‘apartheid state’ is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination among the nations.”

Kenneth Meshoe, a black member of the South African parliament, states emphatically, “I know that nothing is happening in that country [Israel] that can be compared to apartheid in South Africa.” Meshoe, who was born in Pretoria under apartheid, speaks from experience.  “We know what apartheid really was.  What we suffered in South Africa is not being suffered by anyone in Israel….  Non-Jews in Israel have everything that we non-whites in apartheid South Africa never shared with the white South Africans.”

Meshoe adds, “The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a lie about Israel, and it is a lie about the real apartheid.”  To those who propagate the slander, he says, “You are damaging the chance for peace in the Middle East and… you are destroying the memory of the real apartheid.”  As Gerald Steinberg puts it, “In reality, the analogy and rhetoric are absurd, and they demean black victims of the real apartheid.”  He points out, too, that “the ‘Zionism is apartheid’ propaganda is also used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and the efforts to deny Israelis the basic human right of self-defense….”

The comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel is ridiculous, a case of apples and oranges.  As Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says, “Israel is not like South Africa in any way.” Yet the “apartheid” slander persists, facts notwithstanding, because it is a useful propaganda theme for the purpose of demonizing and delegitimizing Israel as well as denying Israel’s right to exist.

Author and journalist Benjamin Pogrund was born in Cape Town in the 1930s and left South Africa only after being forced out for his critical journalism.  Since then he has lived more than a dozen years in Israel.  He writes, “I am acutely aware of Israel’s problems and faults, but it is nothing like South Africa before 1994.”  He cites “pass laws” that limited where blacks were allowed to live and work, torture and detention without trial by the security police, and starvation and malnutrition in the rural areas.

In apartheid South Africa, any black who needed medical treatment and was fortunate enough to find a white doctor willing to treat him had to enter the clinic or hospital through the back door and get inferior treatment.   There is no such discrimination in Israeli medical facilities.

In Israel there are non-Jewish judges, teachers, professors, even members of Knesset, as well as others holding high positions in all professions and occupations.  In apartheid South Africa, non-whites were systematically banned from all such opportunities.   They were deprived of the right to vote and choose their own leaders.  Israeli citizens, both Jews and Palestinians, have these civil rights in full.

Blacks under apartheid were the overwhelming majority of the population of South Africa. Yet they were not citizens and they lived under severe restrictions.   Even the basic right to life was trampled on.  The government disrespected their human rights so much that blacks could be killed for protesting against its policies.  In Israel, on the other hand, Arabs are a minority, but they have equal rights as citizens.

“Zionism and the revival of national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland are not manifestations of European colonialism, in contrast to the white settlers… who created Johannesburg and Pretoria,” writes Steinberg. “ And while black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment….”

As black South African parliament member Kenneth Meshoe observes, there would have been no need for armed struggle in South Africa, and no need for Nelson Mandela to go to prison, if conditions under apartheid had been comparable to the human rights situation in Israel.  In addition to the right to vote, Mandela fought for fundamental rights including freedom of movement and travel, freedom to live where one chooses, freedom of access to medical facilities, and the right to education.  In Israel, those rights are already in effect for all Israeli citizens without discrimination.

From its beginning, the Zionist movement has held an egalitarian mentality, rejecting social class hierarchy structures.  The idea was that no one, no social elite, was above doing useful labor.   Otherwise, said Ben Gurion, “this will not be our homeland.”  That egalitarian ideal has continued to shape Israeli society and culture.  It stands in stark contrast to the racially oppressive and brutal, rights-denying character of apartheid.  The two models of society could hardly be more opposite.

There is a caveat, though, when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian territories as differentiated from Israel per se.   Those areas have their own governing authorities whereby they manage their own affairs.  In fact, they don’t just want their own separate state.  Disputing Israel’s right to exist, they advocate Israel’s destruction and refuse to give up terrorism.  As a result of this hostile intransigence, Israel cannot take the self-destructive step of extending citizenship to the Palestinians in the territories, which would amount to de-facto annexation.  But the fact that the territories are governed separately from Israel does not imply by any stretch of the imagination that Israel is an apartheid state.

Benjamin Pogrund, after acknowledging some of Israel’s faults, writes: “But from my perspective, there is none of the institutionalized racism, the intentionality that underpinned apartheid in South Africa. So why does the BDS movement insist otherwise?”  His conclusion: “For them to propagate this analogy in the name of human rights is cynical and manipulative.  Their aims would eliminate Israel.”

Why there is no “Genocide” in Gaza:

1. “Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of an entire group in whole or in part that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. This is not Israel’s objective in Gaza.
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent, introduced the term genocide in 1944 to refer to events including the Nazis’ systematic extermination of Jews.
Lemkin explained the need for a new legal term to describe this horror, saying: “there has been no serious endeavor hitherto to prevent and punish the murder and destruction of millions…. there was not even an adequate name for such a phenomenon.”
The United Nations General Assembly recognized genocide as a crime under international law in 1946 and it was codified in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948.
The Convention defines genocide as the commission of grave harm against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group – such as by killing, causing serious physical or mental harm, inflicting conditions that bring about physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births or forcibly taking away children – with the intent to destroy the group as such.
Genocide means targeting members of a group because of their group identity and not something they are individually thought to have done.
Israel’s war is against Hamas: Israel is not seeking to destroy the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza, which is what would need to happen in order to correctly apply the term “genocide.” Israel’s leaders have repeatedly asserted that their campaign in Gaza is solely against the terrorist organization Hamas. In fact, this type of military campaign is the exact opposite of reflecting an attempt to eliminate the Palestinian population.
Furthermore, on occasions in which Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined and the IDF has reiterated that it has no wish to harm innocents.

2. Israel is responding to a genocidal attack by Hamas
Since October 7, Israel’s objective in Gaza has been to destroy Hamas, a terrorist organization that carried out an unprecedented and brutal massacre against its people, including infants, children, elderly and disabled people. The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, and its representatives have recently reiterated that they will never stop pursuing it. That’s an example of genocidal intent.
Expose this false claim
Israel is fully justified in using military force to respond to Hamas’s October 7 attack (read AJC’s explainer on Israel, Hamas, and international law). Given the extent of the damage the Iran-backed terror group inflicted and the nature of Hamas’s genocidal intentions, Israel’s goal of eliminating the terrorist group entirely is appropriate, and its use of significant force (which always must be directed at legitimate military targets) to achieve is compatible with the requirement of proportionality. Israel’s use of military force in Gaza in the face of such a threat is not evidence of genocide, but completely consistent with international law.

3. Israel’s actions reflect its desire to spare Palestinian civilians from harm, not to deliberately harm them
The humane practices of the IDF disprove claims of genocidal intent, as the Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on terrorist infrastructure and legitimate military targets in the coastal enclave.
Humanitarian corridors: In fact, Israel called for the temporary evacuation of the local population in the northern part of the Gaza Strip, and delayed its ground operation in Gaza for weeks to allow civilians time to heed Israel’s warnings. Before and since it has continued to go to great lengths to indicate safe routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate from northern Gaza. Israel has made it clear to residents that Gaza City has become a battle zone because Hamas terrorists are hiding in terror tunnels located under civilians’ houses and has repeatedly stated that residents of northern Gaza will be able to return to the area when conditions permit.
Far from reflecting genocidal intent, Israel’s temporary relocation of Palestinian civilians out of northern Gaza reflects an intention to ensure they are out of harm’s way as it undertakes a legitimate military campaign to destroy Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure, which unfortunately is embedded in and under civilian areas in Gaza.
Moreover, since October 17, Israel also has allowed more and more humanitarian aid deliveries for Palestinians to enter through the Rafah crossing, further refuting the suggestion that its limitations on the entry of aid and supplies for Palestinians have any purpose other than to deprive Hamas of the ability to resupply and continue its attacks against Israel.

4. Hamas’ actions are designed to cause harm to Palestinian civilians and blame Israel
Israel has a right to defend itself within the bounds of international conventions and law from the thousands of Hamas missiles that have been fired on Israeli towns and cities since October 7. Those missiles don’t originate from military bases, as international law dictates. They are fired from civilian neighborhoods in the Gaza Strip, and from inside, next to, and underneath nominally civilian areas in Gaza like residential buildings, schools, mosques, and hospitals. When Hamas takes these actions it transforms what were once protected civilian sites into legitimate military targets.
Hamas puts civilians in harm’s way: While Israel goes to great lengths to avoid harming civilians as it targets Hamas’s weapons and operations centers in Gaza, Hamas typically proceeds to place Palestinian civilians directly in the path of the IDF’s targets. It has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
Hamas’ actions are not only aimed at protecting its leaders, weapons, and property but also at vying for leverage in the public opinion war by inflating the number of civilian casualties.
Through its actions in Gaza, Hamas greatly increases the likelihood that military actions by Israel that are permissible in war and not prohibited by the law of war – let alone by the Genocide Convention – will nevertheless result in some harm to civilians. International law does not prohibit Israel from attacking legitimate military targets even when it is possible or likely that some civilian harm will result – unless the expected civilian harm will clearly exceed the anticipated military advantage from the attack.
While Israel takes many steps to minimize civilian harm resulting from its attacks against Hamas targets, as much as it can, it cannot eliminate it entirely. This is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not illegal, and it certainly is not genocide.

5. The “facts” of the genocide charge don’t add up
Those who claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza not only misunderstand the legal definition of genocide and what the laws of war permit; they also base the charge on unsubstantiated claims.
It is unquestionable that many civilians in Gaza have died and even more have suffered immensely since October 7. However, there are so many “unknowns” with an important bearing on Israel’s conduct in this war that it is impossible to say with certainty that it is acting wrongfully.
• The number of “innocents” vs. terrorists that have died: This is impossible to know given that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is under the control of and susceptible to influence by Hamas, and does not separate innocent civilians from fighters in its announced death tolls.
• The circumstances in which numerous innocents have been killed in Gaza: This includes whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional harmful actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups. A key example is the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, which the U.S. and other governments have determined was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and not, as Hamas, the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza, and many other sources claimed, by the IDF.
• The nature of the military objective of attacks carried out by the IDF in which Palestinian civilians have died: Given that it is not possible for independent assessments to be conducted into whether a Hamas leader, tunnel, and/or weapons cache was present at the site of any specific IDF attack in Gaza, which Hamas still largely controls.
While some of those who claim Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza are doing so for malign purposes – for example, justifying Hamas’ October 7 massacre by claiming Israel is ‘worse,’ many others have been deliberately misled. Their goal of ending the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza would be far better served by placing blame for that suffering where it lies – with Hamas – and supporting efforts to bring about its defeat so that Palestinian and Israeli civilians can have the peace and security they all deserve as quickly as possible.

What I find most disconcerting is the number of “Progressives” that have jumped on the “genocide” band wagon, making them supporters of Hamas, whose domestic policies are anything but Progressive, including the misogynistic treatment of women, outright murder of LGBTQ palestinians, and their “mission statement” to obliterate Israel.