In a world brimming with instant information and the magnetic pull of celebrity influence, it’s easy for truth to get lost in the shuffle. This is especially true when it comes to highly sensitive and complex issues, like the ongoing narrative surrounding Israel and Palestine. Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced a deep concern on “60 Minutes,” pointing a finger at social media for what he sees as a dramatic decline in support for Israel in the United States. He suggested that this shift correlates almost perfectly with the explosive growth of these digital platforms. And he might have a point, especially when we consider how readily critics of Israel leverage—and sometimes distort—the words and images of famous people.
Let’s zero in on a classic example: the seasoned actor Richard Gere. Not long ago, social media was alight with memes featuring a quote attributed to him, a seemingly strong denouncement: “There’s no defense of this occupation. Settlements are such an absurd provocation…” The problem? This powerful statement, widely circulated as if it were a fresh, relevant critique, actually dates back to March 13, 2017, nearly a decade ago, when it appeared in Newsweek. It’s a stark illustration of how old information can be dusted off, repackaged, and presented as current truth, shaping public opinion without proper context or scrutiny. While other actors like Mark Ruffalo, Javier Bardem, and Susan Sarandon have faced significant backlash for their strong criticisms of Israel, especially after events like the October 7th terrorist invasion, Gere has largely flown under the radar – until now. This pattern highlights a broader issue: many celebrities, with their immense fame, often amplify extreme views on intricate global matters, particularly those concerning Israel, without necessarily possessing the foundational knowledge required to truly inform the public.
But let’s peel back the layers of this so-called “occupation” and the “settlements.” The term itself, “settlements,” carries a heavy, often negative connotation, yet the reality on the ground is significantly more nuanced than many realize. Critics often present these communities as an illegal imposition by Israel on Palestinian land. However, the narrative shifts dramatically when we delve into historical agreements and the current administrative structures. Article VII of the first Oslo Accord, signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1993, authorized the PA to establish a modest 12,000-man “police force.” Over time, this force ballooned into a 60,000-man “security force,” effectively acting as an army, and was even trained and armed by the CIA. Today, the PA’s security apparatus is among the largest per capita in the world. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has actually described PA-administered areas as “one of the most heavily policed territories in the world.” From this vantage point, it’s not Israel doing the “occupying,” but frankly, the PA itself.
The notion of an Israeli “occupation” of these territories, while perhaps historically accurate for a brief period, fundamentally changed long ago. After the summer of 2005, there were no Israeli families residing in the Gaza Strip settlements, and crucially, zero on October 7, 2023. This is a critical fact that memes, like the one featuring Gere, often deliberately obscure. Israeli troops initially entered these areas in self-defense during the Six-Day War in June 1967. However, between 1993 and 1995, this military presence concluded, replaced by an agreed-upon division of the region between Israel and the PA. Israel withdrew from the areas where 98% of Palestinian Arabs reside, meaning there are no Israeli troops, no Israeli administration, and no Israeli military governors in those areas today. So, the lingering question remains: if not Israel, then who is truly “occupying” these lands?
The answer, logically, points to the Palestinian Authority. With its own armed forces (euphemistically called “security forces”), its own administration, and its own governors, the PA manages the courts, police, schools, media, and all other functions typically associated with a governing entity. The only parts of the area where Israel maintains influence are where Israeli citizens reside. So, when Richard Gere, or anyone else, speaks of “occupation” and “absurd provocation,” do they truly object to the presence of Jewish families living in areas laden with thousands of years of Jewish history? Take Hebron, in Judea, for example. It is the ancient resting place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah—a place intrinsically linked to Jewish heritage. Is it truly “absurd” to suggest that Jewish people have a right to live in such historically significant locations? Would Gere advocate for hundreds of thousands of young Jews to be forcibly removed from their homes – an act that, ironically, might be seen as an “absurd provocation” in itself, echoing his own decade-old words?
Furthermore, the very presence of these so-called “settlements” is not some rogue Israeli initiative but is stipulated within the Oslo Accords, agreements signed by both Israel and the PA. While Israel’s historical claim to the area extends far beyond these agreements, rooted in over 3,000 years of continuous Jewish inhabitation, centuries of Jewish national sovereignty, and even international law and the Hebrew Bible, the fact remains that the Palestinian Authority agreed to the existence of these communities. If the PA, through official accords, acknowledged and agreed to these settlements, then perhaps a handful of celebrities might consider looking to the Hollywood Hills for their causes, rather than offering potentially outdated and misinformed criticisms of the complex realities in places like Hebron. The situation demands a profound understanding of history, agreements, and current realities, not just the fleeting, often distorted, pronouncements echoed across social media.