Uncategorized

The Truth about the West Bank


Here’s a video (produced by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with StandWithUs) which does a very effective job at explaining the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, where the terms “West Bank”, “occupied territories” and “67 Borders” originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied. 

27 replies »

  1. Much as I dislike Dany Ayalon, the video, as a lesson in recorded history, is quite good.

    I hope to see it posted on CiF in the future. (Cough. Cough again).

  2. ” The Truth about the West Bank

    by Adam Levick

    the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict ”

    With all due respect,

    the Arab-Israeli conflict encompasses deeper dimensions, ranging from religion to culture and, last but not least, geopolitics.

    Once we acquiesce to adopt this narrow interpretation, we effectively lose our moral advantage of being the underdog in this fight.

    Nearly three hundred million MENA Arabs outnumber Israeli Jews 50 to 1 or thereabout.

    The struggle therefore isn’t just about Gazans and/or Arabs in Judea & Samaria, not when Shia fundamentalists in faraway Iran sharpen knives every day to kill Jews, more than a thousand miles away from Tehran.

    In so many words… the Muslim-Jewish conflict… that’s what we have on our plate.

    Terminology always matters a great deal.

    • Shlomo Gazit is not a traitor. The man dedicated his whole life to serve Israel.

      I disagree entirely with what he writes in that article. To survive we must fight and survive we must. That’s the only way for our kind.

      Arabs/Muslims hate our guts. Nothing has really changed since the 1930s. One way or another, they still follow mufti Husseini’s Muslim supremacist ideology.

      One can attribute General Shlomo Gazit’s inopportune words for being long in the tooth. He is an old man now . And let’s leave it at that.

      Having said that, I understand and appreciate your passion and due diligence

      • “Shlomo Gazit is not a traitor.”

        MTC calling him a traitor is his modus operandi of presenting a caricature of right-wing Zionist Jews—that they supposedly slap the label “traitor” automatically on anyone who slightly disagrees with them. A neat rhetorical trick, but flawed by untruthfulness.

        Even a bona fide right-wing Zionist Jew like yours truly doesn’t think all who disagree with me are traitors, believe it or not. Like most right-wing Zionist Jews, I’m deeply frustrated that, after the welcoming of the evacuation of Gaza in August 2005 by a barrage of Kassam rockets on Sderot, there remain Israeli Jews who still believe in the ability of land concessions to bring us peace; however, most of us right-wing Zionist Jews regard those people as tragically misguided and terminally unthinking rather than traitors, which implies malice aforethought.

        If you want to be regarded as a traitor, at least as far as this right-wing Zionist Jew is concerned, you’ll have to do better than that: You need to call for the dissolution of the Jewish State, for example by advocating the Binational (One-State) Solution, the Right of Return etc. Mere disagreement with some of my ideas won’t cut it.

        • “MTC calling him a traitor is his modus operandi of presenting a caricature of right-wing Zionist Jews—that they supposedly slap the label”

          I knew he was up to no good and I kinda called his bluff.

          Again, we are not the effin’ Borg . We all don’t have to think alike.

          Moreover, in a democracy all points of view should be heard without legal impediments provided though citizens remain loyal to the state especially in wartime.

          Many thanks for your interesting commentary.

          • “Moreover, in a democracy all points of view should be heard without legal impediments provided though citizens remain loyal to the state especially in wartime.”

            The way I see it, a democracy that doesn’t defend itself from attacks on its very legitimacy is like a ship where passengers who drill holes in their cabin floors aren’t thrown overboard.

            In the case of Israel: Dispute everything you want, except the right of the Jews to political sovereignty on Palestine. For to dispute that is to dispute the state itself, and democracy naturally gets trashed as a consequence. No ship, then inevitably no hull; no state, then inevitably no democracy.

            Thank you too for your responses.

        • MTC calling him a traitor is his modus operandi of presenting a caricature of right-wing Zionist Jews—that they supposedly slap the label “traitor” automatically on anyone who slightly disagrees with them. A neat rhetorical trick, but flawed by untruthfulness.

          But there have been all too many comments both above and below the line on this website implying such “traitor” labels.

              • Happy September UN resolution (no doubt that date will become a day of celebration) – which people like you will be directly responsible for. The Palestinians will forever be grateful to people like you for delivering their state, without negotiating any concessions. Congratulations.

                • MindOfCrap, September will be as successful for islamofascists as the Gaza flotilla and flytilla.

                  Happy continued and eternal NAKBA MindOfCrap!

                  P.S. I do wish for the islamofascist regime of iran what it wishes for the US and Israel.

                • “The Palestinians will forever be grateful to people like you for delivering their state, without negotiating any concessions.”

                  The Sudeten Arabs will forever be grateful to people like you for pressuring the Jewish State to make concessions to them; especially they will be thankful for your wholesale buying of the myth that they want to gain independence for themselves rather than take away independence from the Jews.

                  Happy Nakba indeed, as TGIAI said.

  3. What does the Palestinian camp say in response when asked from whom did Jordan occupy the West Bank from in 1948? To my understanding no state held sovereignty over it whilst several lay claim to it so why is it considered an occupied territory as opposed to being disputed?

    • Jordan did in fact claim sovereign rights back in the 1950s.

      Back then, only Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, methinks, recognized de jure the Hashemites’ suzerainty over Judea & Samaria along with east Jerusalem.

      In the 1990s, upon signing the peace treaty with Israel, Jordan effectively gave up all previous claims.

      Technically speaking, the West Bank is ‘terra incognita’ nowadays given that no sovereign power holds complete jurisdictional rights. Not to confuse things, the West Bank isn’t legally ‘terra nullius’.

      That’s about it.

      • You would like to think it was only Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that recognised the illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria by the Jordanian army in 1948, after which it was renamed the West Bank of Jordan.

        This renaming and its precise wording implies that the West Bank belongs to Jordan by right – when ii truth Judea and Samaria are the key part of the historical land of the Jewish nation. This renaming has succeded in its desired intention to deny the Jews their historic rights whilst giving that territory to a nation that never existed, namely the Palestinians..

        In fact it was only Pakistan and the United Kindom correctly known Perfidious Albion that accepted the illegal occupation of Judea and Sameria.

        Of course events have changed since 1948 and Israel is now in possession of 2.4 million angry Arabs in Judea and Sameria seeking not only their own state in that territory but that of Israel itself. This is one of the reasons why a solution is so difficult.

  4. I’m glad that StandWithUs is working with the Israeli government to counter the racist socialist and islamofascist onslaught.

    In additon to the military war, there is a psychological war going on that is as important to fight and win.

    The uk has been an asset to islamofascists despite the clear evidence that islamofascism is a cancer eating away at the uk.

    http://www.boycottscotland.com

  5. “… after Jordan joined a war launched by Syria and Egypt …”

    But that’s simply not true, is it? Of course it’s a complicated matter, and you could argue that Israel’s attack was preemptive – but an attack it was.

    • After threats by Nasser to throw Israel into the sea and Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran…

      the best defense is a good offense.

      In case you didn’t know due to your limited education, the US attacked Nazi Germany too.

      Happy NAKBA pretzels!

      • In case you didn’t know due to your limited education, the US attacked Nazi Germany too.

        FYI the Nazis declared war on Germany.
        “Limited ecuation”?? That’s you yourself you’re talking about.

        Anyway: I wasn’t denying the threats made by Egypt. I was merely pointing out the disinformation in the PR film. But you knew that, didn’t you?

        • The nazis declared war on Germany?

          What was the nationality of the nazi wermacht?

          The nazis declared war on the entire world.

          Today islamofascists have declared war on the entire world – that includes the already muslim dominated parts.

    • But it is true pretzel. Israel attacked Egypt and Syria and asked Jordan not to join the fight promising that they wont attack them, but they joined anyway.

        • pretzels, Yes, it sucks that the Israelis didn’t wait to be attacked by genocidal arab armies, fueled by murderous arab nazi rallies led by “peace activists” like Gamal Nasser.

          And isn’t it odd that euro nazi filth like alois brunner found a safe haven in syria?

          P.S. When did syria ever kick out nazi war criminals from its country?
          .

          • The points you are making are perfectly valid. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of the film’s statement.