It is not surprising that, among American Jewish groups, the usual suspects have come out to denounce the proposed move. Progressive Jewish organizations are nominally "pro-Israel" but routinely criticize every Israeli action. J Street, Americans for Peace Now, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Israel Policy Forum, the New Israel Fund and others of their ilk have been at the forefront of those condemning the Israeli plan. The progressive Forward publication ran an op-ed entitled, "If Israel proceeds with annexation, American Jews will socially distance – from Israel."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Such is to be expected. These groups and their donors exist to excoriate Israel and to ingratiate themselves with their progressive friends who oppose every Israeli move, be it sovereignty or legitimate self-defense. Thankfully, their views represent a minority of American Jews. Among all Americans, there is overwhelming support for the State of Israel. So the expected denunciations by these progressive Jewish groups can and should be easily dismissed.

What is more surprising, and disturbing, is the silence of mainstream Jewish organizations, who have elected to bury their heads in the sand on this vital question. Groups such as AIPAC, Stand with Us, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, the American Jewish Committee and others have tried to maintain a neutral position on the vital question of sovereignty. Stand with Us equivocates that "as a non-partisan Israel education organization, StandWithUs respects Israel's democratic process and does not take positions on such controversies regarding Israeli policy."

It is likely that the silence of these organizations on this pivotal yet controversial issue arises from concerns that taking a stand may cost them their progressive donor base. Specifically, they fear offending progressive Democrats, who have increasingly adopted the anti-Israel rhetoric of Israel's enemies. As has been said in another context: "it's all about the Benjamins, baby."

However, it is precisely on such controversial matters that the constituents of these organizations need guidance and education, especially in the face of an unrelenting campaign of criticism and distorted facts by those who oppose Israel's plan. In response to the often-repeated charge that Israel's proposed move will mean "the end of the two-state solution," it must be stressed that this solution has long been defunct, as the Palestinians have rejected generous offers to create their own state on at least six occasions (in 1937, 1948, 1967, 2000, 2008, 2013) in the past century.

Mainstream Jewish organizations, such as Stand with Us, Jewish Federations, AIPAC and others, should be at the forefront of educating their constituents that the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria goes back at least 3,000 years and is supported by literary, historical and archaeological evidence. They must explain that, in 1967, the State of Israel legally acquired territory in Judea and Samaria in a defensive war after being attacked by Jordan, which had itself been illegally occupying the land for the previous 20 years. They should advocate that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are lawful and consistent with international law, as the U.S. government recently underscored.

These Jewish groups must emphasize that the present Israeli plan will extend sovereignty only to present Jewish settlements and will in no way interfere with Arab cities or the vast majority of Arab residents. They will continue to be governed by the Palestinian Authority as agreed under the 1995 Oslo Accords.

These groups must clarify that the plan does not prevent the granting of Israeli citizenship to the Arabs who will fall within the domain of Israeli sovereignty. The silent Jewish organizations must explain that the plan does not foreclose the possibility of an independent Palestinian state in the remaining 70 percent of the West Bank where the vast majority of Palestinians reside, should they eventually choose to pursue peace.

There is simply no excuse to stand on the sidelines during this existential debate merely because the issue is "controversial."

It is said that during this time of coronavirus, major Jewish organizations are suffering due to decreased donations. The virus may well be responsible for a considerable decline in support, but another virus may be at play here as well. The virus of fear is also rampant: fear of offending one's donors, one's neighbors, one's friends and relatives by taking a position that is unpopular but morally and historically correct.

Perhaps American Jews have grown weary of supporting organizations that lack the courage to distinguish themselves one from another. Perhaps they are hungry for an organization that trusts Israelis to act in their own national interest just as citizens of other countries do. Where is such a major Jewish organization among the American landscape today?

At some point, Israel will extend sovereignty over the Jewish portions of the West Bank. The status quo cannot continue indefinitely until the Palestinians miraculously decide to live in peace next to the Jewish State, a fantasy progressives continue to cling to despite all evidence to the contrary. It is at long last time to face reality and move on.

As Rabbi Hillel wisely said: "If not now, when?"

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post Why do US Jewish leaders remain silent on Israeli sovereignty? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The call rings out from the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, from pro-Palestinian nongovernmental organizations, from progressive Jewish organizations, and from presidential candidates. Ask someone at random what Israel should do to resolve the longstanding Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the answer you're most likely to get is "end the occupation."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

It sounds simple enough – but which occupation are they talking about?

For most Westerners, the answer is obvious: the occupation of the West Bank (acquired by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War).

As it turns out, however, it's not that simple. Contrary to the Western view, for most Palestinians, the occupation is not limited to the West Bank but consists of "historic Palestine," which includes the whole of Israel.

For most Palestinians, the occupation began in 1948 when Israel was born, and only continued in 1967 when Israel took over the West Bank. Therefore, they won't be satisfied with anything less than the elimination of the State of Israel.

There is a glaring discrepancy on this matter between our friends on the Upper West Side and our friends in Ramallah.

Don't just take my word for it.  Listen to the Palestinians themselves.

In a speech on Palestinian TV in October 2013, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated: "All Palestinian land is occupied – Gaza is occupied, the West Bank is occupied, the 1948 lands [i.e., Israel] are occupied and Jerusalem is occupied."

A June 2019 survey of Palestinians conducted by the Palestine Center for Public Opinion confirms the Palestinian perception of the occupation. When asked about ending the conflict with Israel permanently, only 30% of West Bankers would approve a two-state solution. The majority says, "The conflict should not end and resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated."

This stunning video vividly illustrates Palestinians' understanding of the occupation. Palestinians were asked, "If Israel left the West Bank and Gaza, would there be peace with Israel?" At first, most answer in the affirmative – until it is clarified that that would mean Israel would still exist next to an independent Palestinian state. After which, respondents make it clear that by "ending the occupation" they were referring not only to the West Bank and Gaza, but to Israel proper as well.

Indeed, the symbol of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which seeks to end the occupation, does not show a map of the West Bank, but a map of all of Israel, the "liberation" of which is the real goal of the BDS campaign.

And there is no mistaking the meaning of the chant heard at virtually all pro-Palestinian rallies: "From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free." The river is the Jordan River and the sea is the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, Palestine is Israel.

Further, the Palestinians memorialize the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" not to commemorate the 1967 Six-Day War but rather to mourn the 1948 War of Independence. For a Palestinian, the real occupation began in 1948 with the creation of Israel, not in 1967. That is the occupation they seek to end to this day.

Regardless of what Westerners might think, Palestinians are of the view that the occupation includes all of Israel and will continue until not only the West Bank is in their hands, but also Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Ramat Gan.

This is nothing new. Palestinians have been vowing to destroy Israel from day one, even before the 1967 occupation of the West Bank. Prior to the 1948 war, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, made it clear that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent the birth of the Jewish state, but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated."

Prior to the 1967 war, Hafez al-Assad, then Syria's defense minister, declared: "The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

The Palestinians have backed up these words with numerous wars and acts of terrorism.

Understanding the Palestinians' view of the occupation helps explain their otherwise inexplicable rejection of numerous offers by Israel and the international community to create their own independent state living in peace side-by-side with Israel (1937, 1947, 1967, 2000, 2008). As the video above makes abundantly clear, Palestinians have no interest in living side-by-side with Israel. They are determined to end the occupation "from the river to the sea."

At the end of the day, what matters is not how Western advocates for Palestinians spin the issue, but rather what Palestinians say and do. And they have made their desires abundantly clear in word and deed for over a century.

The next time you are having a discussion of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and someone says, "If only Israel would end the occupation, there would be peace," ask them: "End which occupation?"

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post End which occupation? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

J Street charges that Birthright trips lack Palestinians voices, fail to incorporate the Palestinian narrative and neglect to visit Palestinian sites in the West Bank. As an alternative to the traditional Birthright tour, J Street recently sponsored a trip to Israel for 28 participants who visited Palestinian sites in the West Bank and heard from spokesmen for the Palestinian cause.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

According to The New York Times, "In the West Bank settlement of Har Gilo," the J Streeters "received a harsh history lesson from a veteran opponent of the occupation. Then they toured an impoverished, water-starved Palestinian village that Israeli settlers want to demolish, and visited the city of Hebron, where repeated outbreaks of violence have turned an entire Palestinian business district into a ghost town."

The J Street trip and the Times article about it were highly criticized in a pointed piece in Commentary magazine. The Commentary review noted that there was not a word in either the trip or the Times article "on the murderous Palestinian anti-Semitic violence that necessitates Israel's policing of such places [as Hebron] to begin with," "no mention of the kleptocratic Palestinian leadership that's consigned generations of Palestinians to certain ruin" and "no mention of the fact that the Palestinians have, again and again – and again – refused to make peace with Israel when it was offered."

However, there was one particular failing of the J Street trip that has not received the attention it deserves.

A favorite stop of anti-Israel activists escorting celebrities on tours of Israeli "oppression" in the West Bank is the now-shuttered Shuhada Street in the Old City of Hebron. Shuhada Street is a half-mile long road in Hebron which used to be the thriving market center of the city, frequented by Palestinians and Israelis daily. Today, it is a virtual ghost town, largely shut down by the Israeli military for security reasons. A visit to Shuhada Street is designed to underscore alleged Israeli apartheid and the cruelty of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank.

However, as discussed at length here, the tale of Shuhada Street is a myth. Shuhada Street was a highlight of J Street's alternative tour and the group fell for the myth, hook, line, and sinker. To date, no one has pointed out that the J Streeters were duped on their visit to Hebron.

The Times' fawning article on the J Street tour featured a picture of Shuhada Street with the following caption: "The students toured what were once Hebron's main market streets, now a graveyard of abandoned storefronts and apartments."

The effect of the visit on the student participants was dramatic. As The Times reports, two participants said they were "reconsidering" their belief in a Jewish state. One stated that he "came in here a very ardent Zionist," but that he was "starting to doubt … whether Zionism is even worth pursuing anymore." Another participant described walking "in stunned silence through the post-apocalyptic streets of Hebron, where severe restrictions on movement have shuttered most Palestinian storefronts."

These reactions were similar to those of others who have been escorted through Shuhada Street by pro-Palestinian activists. Pulitzer prize-winning American Jewish author Michael Chabon, on a tour of Shuhada Street, called the occupation "the most grievous injustice I have ever seen in my life." Hollywood actor Richard Gere likened the situation in Hebron to segregation in the Jim Crow-era American South. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, has said of Shuhada Street: "It is impossible to be a Jew and not feel shame at the way Palestinians are treated in the center of Hebron."

However, what is generally missing from such pro-Palestinian activist tours (the J Street tour was no exception) are the following salient facts:

• The Jewish connection with Hebron is deep and dates back almost 4,000 years to when Abraham, the father of Judaism, came to the land of Israel and settled in the city. Abraham purchased a plot of land, known as the Cave of the Patriarchs, as a burial plot. The site is the final resting place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish religion. As a result, Hebron is considered to be the second holiest city for Jews after Jerusalem.
• Present-day Hebron is divided into two parts. The Palestinian Authority controls 97% of the city and Israelis are forbidden to enter. Israel controls 3% of the city, including the site of the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is open to people of all faiths, as Muslims and Christians also claim descent from Abraham.
• Unlike other Palestinians cities in the West Bank (Ramallah, Nablus, Jericho), where Jews are prohibited by law from living or even visiting, 85 Jewish families reside near the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Jews have suffered violence, including massacres, by Arabs in Hebron since the 1920s. Suicide bombings and shootings caused the Israeli authorities to largely shut down Shuhada Street as a security measure, resulting in its present abandoned condition.
• In place of the now-shuttered fruit and vegetable stalls on Shuhada Street, a new, thriving Arab commercial district exists less than a mile away, surrounded by almost 200,000 Palestinians (and no Jews). The new commercial district includes an ultra-modern, nine-story indoor mall, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino's Pizza franchises and all the accouterments of a modern, sophisticated commercial area. Very few outsiders can or do visit this part of modern Hebron. The J Street tour was no exception. In lamenting the demise of the old market on Shuhada Street, none of the J Street tourists seemed at all aware of the prosperous new commercial market nearby.
• The J Streeters were unaware that "Shuhada Street […] is not the main thoroughfare of Hebron as claimed. It is a comparatively small road in the Old City. Hebron is a large, thriving city, with massive factories, businesses, and shopping malls. Hebron is the most prosperous city and the main center of the economy for the PA, with more than 40% of the PA economy produced there. There are 17,000 factories and workshops in all areas of production. There are four hospitals, three universities and an indoor 4,000-seat basketball stadium."

The myth of Shuhada Street, which the J Street alternative tour completely bought into, is a metaphor for the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like the rest of the Palestinian narrative, the myth of Shuhada Street as a symbol of supposed Israel apartheid and oppression (just down the street from a modern mall where Jews are prohibited) is grounded in misrepresentations, omissions, and facts taken out of context. It lies at the heart of the Palestinian propaganda machine. This myth must be exposed.

At the end of the day, the J Street tour is not an alternative tour. It is an alternative reality, based on alternative facts. This too must be exposed.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post J Streeters duped on alternative tour of Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Sorek was murdered almost exactly 19 years after his maternal grandfather, Rabbi Binyamin Herling, was shot dead in a terror attack near Nablus in October 2000.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Palestinians celebrated Sorek's death by handing out sweets in the streets and setting off fireworks from a nearby Palestinian village as he was laid to rest.

Celebrating the murder of Jews with sweets has become customary in Palestinian society and a tradition not generally noted in the American press. In November 2014, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip celebrated an attack on a Jerusalem synagogue that left four dead and others wounded.

Following an October 2015 stabbing and shooting attack at the Central Bus Station in Beersheba, during which a young Israeli soldier was killed and many other commuters wounded, candy was distributed to passers-by in the streets of Shuafat, in eastern Jerusalem, to celebrate the "victory."

In January 2017, Palestinians took to the streets and social media to celebrate a truck-ramming attack in Jerusalem in which four Israeli soldiers were killed.

It is not surprising to hear the Palestinian leadership praising the murder of Jews in Israel, as it immediately did this week after the murder of Sorek, calling it "a heroic operation" and a "natural response to the Israeli occupation's crimes." But to see the Palestinian people repeatedly celebrating these murders by passing out sweets in the street gives one pause and raises serious questions about the likelihood of a two-state solution with each side living in peace next to the other.

The reaction of Palestinians to the murder of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists helps to explain why Palestinians repeatedly have rejected legitimate and generous offers by the international community and Israel to establish their own independent state next to Israel (in 1939, 1947, 1967, 2000 and 2008). They simply have no desire to live in peace next to the Jewish state of Israel.

Their goal from day one has been the extermination of Jews "from the river to the sea" (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including all of present-day Israel). The murder of Sorek is not an isolated incident but simply their latest effort to achieve this goal.

The Palestinian reaction to the murder of Israelis forces one to more closely examine the Palestinian narrative. That narrative includes many claims to support their cause: statelessness, occupation, refugees, violations of human rights. And yet the Palestinians are not unique in their circumstances. It is well-documented that there are well over 300 peoples in the world today with legitimate claims to statehood, and many of these people live under brutal occupation and deprivations far in excess of anything suffered by the Palestinians.

And yet despite their legitimate claims and grievous living conditions, none of these other stateless peoples have resorted to the kind of mass murder that Palestinians have subjected the world to over the past half-century.

This is where the Palestinians are unique among the world's independence movements. Palestinians virtually invented and perfected the art of political terrorism by hostage-taking, plane hijackings, stone-throwing, stabbings, shootings, and suicide bombings.

Among the attacks they are noted for are numerous plane hijackings in the 1970s; the 1979 Nahariya attack; the 1980 Paris synagogue bombing; the 1981 Antwerp bombing; the 2000 Ramallah lynching; the 2004 Sinai bombings; the 2008 Dimona suicide bombing; the 2011 Itamar attack; the 2001 Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing on the Tel Aviv beachfront which killed 21 Israelis, 16 of them teenagers; the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murder of Leon Klinghoffer in his wheelchair; the 1996 Jaffa Road bus bombings which killed 45 people; the 1972 Lod Airport massacre; the 1974 Maalot massacre which involved a two-day hostage-taking of 115 Israelis and ended in the murders of over 25 hostages; the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre resulting in the death of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes; the 2001 Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing in which 15 people were killed, including seven children and a pregnant woman, and 130 wounded; the murder of Ari Fuld last year and of Dvir Sorek last week.

These are just examples and do not constitute a complete list.

It is estimated that approximately 4,000 Israelis have been killed in terrorist attacks since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. This is the population equivalent of 200,000 Americans.

Despite this notorious history of Palestinian violence, there are those in America and Europe who, for their own reasons, continue to enable and normalize Palestinian terrorism by their support of the Palestinian "narrative." In response to the brutal murder of Dvir Sorek, the progressive American Jewish magazine The Forward published an opinion piece which urged its audience not to "politicize" Sorek's death but to remember the message of peace he was carrying when he was slaughtered (books by a peace activist). The opinion writer fails to even admonish Sorek's killers or note that they, too, must have missed his message of peace.

At the end of the day, the terrorists who murdered Sorek, and their families, will likely get a sweeter deal than treats in the street. The Palestinian government has created a "Martyrs Fund" to pay a monthly stipend to the families of Palestinians killed, injured or imprisoned for involvement in attacking Israelis.

It is a system called "pay for slay" and it was reported that the fund paid out over $300 million in 2017 in amounts often exceeding $3,000 a month, at a time when the Palestinian government was struggling to pay its own civil servants. Sorek's killers and their families are set for life, further incentivizing the murder of Jews.

The Shin Bet security agency announced Saturday that it had arrested two Palestinian cousins suspected of Sorek's murder. The suspects hail from the Palestinian village of Bayt Kahil near Migdal Oz, and at least one is a member of Hamas. The Israel army said that over 100 residents of Bayt Kahil began hurling stones at troops while they were carrying out the arrest raid.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post An Israeli is murdered and the Palestinians rejoice appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Why Shuhada Street was closed, how the commercial center of Hebron has moved less than a mile from the now-abandoned Shuhada Street and become a thriving market district seldom if ever visited by outsiders, and a place where Jews (not just Israelis, but Jews from any country) are banned is a story seldom told in full. It represents the true story of "apartheid" in Hebron. I visited the city last week and expose the myth of Shuhada Street for the first time here.

The Jewish connection to Hebron dates back almost 4,000 years to when Abraham, the father of Judaism, came to the Land of Israel and settled in the city. Abraham purchased a plot of land, known as the Cave of the Patriarchs, as a burial plot. The site is considered to be the final resting place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish religion. It is also said that King David was anointed king in Hebron, and that Hebron was the first capital of Israel until it was moved to Jerusalem.

As a result of this historic significance, Jews have prayed in Hebron since biblical times, and with a few interruptions have lived there continuously. Hebron is considered to be the second holiest city for Jews after Jerusalem.

Hebron has a long and complicated history, having been conquered by many invading peoples, including the Babylonians, Romans, Byzantines, Muslim Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, Mamelukes and the British. Following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, Hebron was captured and occupied by the Jordanian Arab Legion. During the Jordanian occupation, which lasted for 20 years, until 1967, Jews were not permitted to live in the city, nor to visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city. No one complained of "apartheid."

After being attacked by Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israelis captured Hebron and reopened the city to Jews and peoples of all religions. Starting in 1968, a small group of Jewish settlers attempted to create a community near the Cave of the Patriarchs.

They were met with violence. In 1968, a 17-year-old Palestinian threw a grenade at Jews praying at the tomb, wounding 47, among them an 8-month-old child. A deadly terrorist attack occurred in May 1980 in which six Jews returning from prayers at the Cave of the Patriarchs were murdered and 20 wounded. In 2001, 10-month old Shalhevet Pass was intentionally shot in her stroller by a sniper lurking in the hills above the old city. In 2003, a pregnant Israeli woman and her husband were killed when a suicide-bomber detonated next to them in the market on Shuhada Street.

Following the 1995 Oslo II Accord, several Palestinian cities (such as Ramallah and Nablus ) were placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority; large red signs warn Israelis that it is against the law for them to enter. This continues to the present day. No one calls this apartheid.

Because of the Jews' historic ties to Hebron, that city was split into two sectors. Area H1 is controlled by the PA and comprises more than 80% of the city. Approximately 170,000 Palestinians live in H1 and Jews (not just Israelis, but Jews from any country) are forbidden to enter (I know because on my recent tour of the area our group was asked whether there were any Jews before we were allowed to enter H1). Area H2, comprising the remaining 20% of Hebron, is home to 30,000 Palestinians and approximately 500 Israelis who live under Israeli civil and security control.

The Cave of the Patriarchs, sacred to Christians and Muslims as well as to Jews, lies in Israeli-controlled H2, but is open to all.

Shuhada Street ("Martyrs Street" in Arabic), in the old city of Hebron, is under Israeli control. The street used to be the central wholesale market of the Hebron region. Because of security threats to the Jewish families who live nearby, Palestinians who are not residents of H2 are not allowed on Shuhada Street. The 30,000 Palestinians who are residents of H2 are permitted to visit Shuhada Street. Most of the Arab shops on the street have closed and it is often referred to critically as a ghost town.

Shuhada Street has become central to the Palestinian narrative that Israel's presence in the West Bank constitutes an apartheid regime, according to Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative. There are hand-made signs on the street designating it as "Apartheid Street."

There are annual "Open Shuhada Street" demonstrations held around the world. Many visitors to Hebron, including celebrity tourists, are brought to Shuhada Street to experience Israel's alleged "apartheid" first-hand. The reactions to such visits are dramatic.

These tours leave the impression that this five-block section of Hebron was shut down for racist reasons. They fail to fully explain the almost century-long history of violence by Arabs against Jews in Hebron that resulted in the closure of Shuhada Street.

Even more significant is that these tours fail to even mention (much less visit) the new Arab commercial district just a few blocks away in the much larger Palestinian-controlled H1 section of the city. There, on Ein Sarah Street, is the thriving business area of Hebron, surrounded by almost 200,000 Palestinians (and no Jews, who are forbidden to enter H1).

If any of those shocked by the "apartheid" of Shuhada Street were to visit this area they would see a flourishing commercial district complete with an ultra-modern indoor nine-story mall. There are Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino's Pizza franchises and all the accouterments of a modern, sophisticated commercial area. They would see the real Palestinian Hebron, which is bustling with life: cars, bikes, food carts, families with small children, shop owners, people everywhere, going about their daily business.

One can Google Shuhada Street and find hundreds of articles condemning Israeli's shuttering of the street and comparing it to apartheid. However, there is little, if any, mention of the fact that the old Shuhada Street has been replaced by a thriving new commercial district.

One must search far and wide to discover that "Shuhada Street […] is not the main thoroughfare of Hebron as claimed. It is a comparatively small road in the old city. Hebron is a large, thriving city, with massive factories, businesses and shopping malls. Hebron is the most prosperous city and main center of economy for the PA, with more than 40% of the PA economy produced there. There are 17,000 factories and workshops in all areas of production. There are four hospitals, three universities and an indoor 4,000-seat basketball stadium."

This is the Hebron very few visitors are allowed to see. This is the invisible counterpoint to the apartheid myth of Shuhada Street.

Many visitors to Hebron take a "dual narrative" tour of the city, where one spends half the day with an Israeli guide and half the day with a Palestinian guide. They truly believe that they are getting an accurate portrait of the city in this manner. However, none of the many descriptions of such tours found on the Internet even mention the new, prosperous commercial area of Hebron that is under Palestinian control and where Jews are forbidden to enter.

On my recent trip to Israel, I took one of these tours expecting to see both sides, including the new commercial district which offsets the tale of Shuhada Street. I repeatedly asked both guides when we were going to visit the new shopping center on Ein Sarah Street. The Israeli guide told me that Mohammed, the Palestinian guide, would take us there. Mohammed first denied that such a place existed, then mocked its significance and finally said there wouldn't be time to go there. The other members of my tour had no idea why I wanted to go there. Mohammed did not explain.

My fellow travelers were left with the impression that the closed Shuhada Street represents the dead heart of Hebron's market scene. And then they mistakenly conclude that Israel shuttered the street for racial reasons and accept the myth of Shuhada Street as representative of Israeli apartheid. No one left the wiser that apartheid in Hebron is a one-way street and that it runs against the Jews, not the Palestinians.

The real shame of Shuhada Street is not that a small number of Palestinians are prevented from going there, but that the Israeli army is needed to prevent the 85 Jewish families who live nearby from being massacred. The real problem in Hebron from a Palestinian point of view is that it is the only city under Palestinian control that allows even a small number of Jews to reside there.

The real apartheid in the West Bank lies not with the Israelis, but with the Palestinian leadership, who insist that any independent Palestinian state be Judenrein (Jew-free) (as are most of the Palestinian cities in the West Bank), in sharp contrast to Israel proper where two million Arabs reside as full citizens and constitute 20 percent of the entire population.

The myth of Shuhada Street is a metaphor for the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like the rest of the Palestinian narrative, the myth of an apartheid Shuhada Street is grounded in misrepresentations, omissions and facts taken out of context. It lies at the heart of the Palestinian propaganda machine. It must be exposed and hopefully, this piece can begin an honest dialogue to do so.

Steve Frank is an attorney, retired after a 30-year career as an appellate lawyer with the US Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. His writings on Israel, the law and architecture have appeared in publications including "The Washington Post," "The Chicago Tribune," "The Jerusalem Post," "The Times of Israel" and "Moment" magazine.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post The myth of Hebron's Shuhada Street appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.