Last week President Obama addressed Holocaust denial at the Buchenwald Nazi concentration camp stating “This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history.” This week Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu echoed Obama’s calls for truth, stating that in order to bring an end to the conflict in the Middle East we must be firmly connected to reality as we honestly and forthrightly address the root of the conflict.

It is ironic that as we address historic lies surrounding the Holocaust, dangerous modern day misconceptions and faulty assumptions about the conflict in the Middle East prevail.  The real danger: These misconceptions often go undetected, are viewed as harmless and are being employed as foundational truths for brokering a Middle East peace agreement. 

One of the most prevalent modern day misconceptions that Netanyahu addressed in his resent speech is the assumption that the Arab-Israeli conflict is being sustained by Israel’s refusal to withdrawal from the West Bank which, in tern, is interpreted as an Israeli resistance to a Palestinian State.  This assumption is based on many myths that need to be addressed in pursuit of sustainable peace in the Middle East. First, we must acknowledge that in 1948 the State of Israel was founded upon a Jewish acceptance of the UN approved two-state solution.  A solution employed by the international community to address the longstanding Arab-Jewish struggle occurring in the British Mandate territory of Palestine. Post World War II Great Britain was eager to free herself of the ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations approved UN Resolution 181 to partition the territory of Palestine into two distinct homelands–one for Jews and one for the Arabs of Palestine. UN Resolution 181 essential partitioned the British Mandate territory of Palestine into two states and included Britain’s plans to evacuate this region by August 1, 1948.  The Jewish portion of the partitioned land had a Jewish majority. Jewish leaders accepted the UN Resolution even though their portion comprised only 13 percent of the original Mandate.  Arab leaders rejected this resolution and choose instead to declare war to seize the whole area. 

Second, as Netanyahu adds his voice in support of a two state solution, it should be noted that support for a Palestinian state has been the official policy of Israel’s recent governments. These governments have not just voiced their support, but they have also demonstrated their commitment to a Palestinian state by withdrawing from parts of the West Bank and fully withdrawing from Gaza in 2005.  Unfortunately, Israel learned (and the world has witnessed) that territorial concessions do not equal peace.  Instead of furthering the case for a peaceful two state solution, Gaza has become a breeding ground for terrorism – a strategic location used to launch attacks against Israel.  Despite the dangerous lessons learned from Gaza, the majority of Israelis still continue to support a full withdrawal from the West bank in hopes of a peaceful resolution that includes their support for the creation of a Palestinian state.

An examination of history reveals that contrary to historic myths, it was the Arab leadership (not the Jewish leadership) that rejected the creation of an Arab/ Palestinian homeland along side of a Jewish homeland. Unfortunately these foundational objections continue to be voiced by many radicals and prominent Palestinian leaders who regularly deny Israel’s right to exist, adhere to founding charters calling for her destruction, refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and continue to sabotage the peace process. In his recent speech Netanyahu stated that “even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.” 

We are living sobering day where we would do well to remember that lies have dangerous consequences.  Obama is to be commended for charging us to confront historic lies as he stood at Buchenwald.  Netanyahu rightly assessed that true efforts at peace will be sorely misdirected if they are built on historic inaccuracies.  As the new administrations of Obama and Netanyahu meet to embark on a two-state solution in the Middle East, perhaps these two governments can unite on this one point: Their common commitment to truth–Obama with his charge to confront historic lies; and Netanyahu with his desire to honestly and forthrightly address the root of the conflict. While there are many challenges to peace in the Middle East, a common commitment to truth may be the golden thread that unites our efforts.