After
reading about a source site (http://fmep.org/)
on the Middle East on a mailing list posting, I immediately went to check
whether it was suitable for adding to my own web page. Instead, I found the
information to consist of pure pro-Arab, anti-Israel propaganda.
I immediately wrote back
and voiced my disgust. The author of the original posting replied by
stating that I "overreact[ed] by slamming this site as anti-zionist
and even anti-semite and blacklisting it. Further more (sic) you make
constantly a clear mistake concerning the status and history of the
Westbank "
My response was as follows:
No, I reacted, not overreacted, when I went to the site and checked it
out. Also, I didn't make any mistakes concerning the status and history
of the area. I admit to being disappointed when I came upon an Arab
propaganda site when I wasn't expecting to find one, but I did read it
carefully, nonetheless and I'll stick by my condemnation that it is
biased and anti-Israel (and I still intend to "blacklist" it.)
While, some of the things that you say are partially correct, I have
found that often half-truths can be more dangerous than outright
mistakes.
> Jordan occupied and administered the Westbank from 1949 to 1967.
Jordan did indeed OCCUPY the West Bank from 1947 to 1967; however, the
PLO was in charge of most of the administration (the ARAB countries did
not want to recognize Jordan's claims to the West Bank.) "Transjordan
annexed its territorial gains (Judaea & Samaria, from now on known
as the West Bank, plus East Jerusalem) and renamed itself the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan; the other Arabs did not recognize this
annexation." [http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/]
In addition, you can read about the JORDANIAN OCCUPATION in General John
Glubb's book about his experiences there - "A Soldier with the
Arabs" (London: Staughton and Hodder, 1957). Glubb was the British
officer who commanded the British financed Jordanian Army during
Israel's War of Independence. As a matter of fact, the land being
discussed was first called "occupied territories" by President
Jimmy Carter, in 1977 - ten years AFTER the Six-Day War.
> Before 1949 the Westbank has never been nor was it meant to be a
legitimate part of Israel proper.
Again your statement has a grain of truth; the territory known as the
West Bank was never intended, by anyone, to be part of JORDAN (which was
formed before the State of Israel.) England specifically kept everything
west of the Jordan River as part of the Mandate. They did this for their
own reasons - they had no intentions of losing the Middle East from
their empire. The fact that they did not have plans for a State of
Israel that existed as a separate country at all, has no bearing on what
they had originally promised the Jews. The Balfour Declaration, written
on November 2, 1917, reads, "..."His Majesty's Government view
with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement of this object,..." Nowhere in that statement does it
say or imply that there are exceptions to that promise in the West Bank
or Gaza or any other of the "disputed territories." (And, just
for the record, I HAVE read the Mandate, along with their White Papers -
you know, the ones that denied access to Palestine to genuine refugees--
unfortunately for them, they were Jews, not Arabs -- who were fleeing
for their lives.) I suggest that you read these documents yourself
instead of depending on sites like the one you recommended; they are
very educational.
However, the Zionists certainly considered the "West Bank" a
part of Eretz Yisroel (it was clearly included in the first World
Zionist Conference in Basle, Switzerland) because it was part of
Biblical Israel. They had no reason not to believe that these any part
of Palestine was not to be included in the area promised to them in
their "homeland." The Jews were told that the British were
holding Palestine in trust for their Homeland.
> So saying that Israel "took it back" in 1967 is simply
not the truth. Israel occupied it (not annexing it) after the victory of
the Six Day War, but that wasn't a "taking it back", nor was
it the intention of Israel to stay there - on the contrary.
Israel recaptured land that Jews had previously been living on; the West
Bank and Jerusalem were neither "occupied" nor
"annexed" in 1967. These included places like their desecrated
cemeteries, their despoiled houses and Hadassah Hospital (which had been
unused for the entire 20 years of Jordan occupation. The major interest
of Israel as far as the "occupied territories" is concerned,
was always Jerusalem; the West Bank was only necessary from a security
standpoint. ISRAELIS, AT NO TIME, "WILLINGLY" GAVE UP AN INCH
OF JERUSALEM, EVER!! They certainly intended, and intend, to stay in
Jerusalem forever! AND INDEED THEY SHOULD!
> The Israeli government, after the Six Day War, on june 19th 1967,
decided to offer back the occupied territories (Sinai, Golan Heights and
Westbank) in return for peace and recognition of Israel.
How remarkably nice of them - to offer back land for something that
should have already been theirs (the right to exist.) Frankly, your
statement makes no sense. Just why would they do that? FYI, Israel never
"voluntarily" offered any land back that soldiers had fought
and died for repeatedly and which they knew would have to fight for
again. The Sinai was the only piece of land that Israel actually tried
to trade for peace and recognition. My fiancé was killed in the Sinai
in 1973 - fighting over the same land that was fought over in 1948,
1956, and 1967. My cousin lost the use of his arm in 1946 just outside
of Haifa; he was a Palestinian Jew - born and raised in Palestine!
Believe me, I know what I'm talking about; I do not only get my
information from websites (or documents, for that matter)! Israel has
given in to world pressure on numerous occasions (just like it is being
forced to right now) but that is not the same thing as
"willingly" giving back its own land!
No one ever considered giving back the Golan Heights; the Syrians never
even pretended that they wouldn't return to their previous activities of
shooting at unarmed farmers in the Kibbutz fields and blowing up
buildings from behind their own lines. Do you remember Ma'alot? I do! To
refresh your memory, they were Israeli schoolchildren blown up by
terrorists under the direct command of Arafat.
> But Jordan, Egypt and Syria refused.
Of course they refused; they (and all of the other Arab countries) have
never wanted peace. That is why "negotiations" with them do
not work. They want, and have always wanted (and say so openly and
publicly) the total destruction of the State of Israel and the
annihilation of all Jews! That is the Arab definition of
"peace." I, for one, do not share it.
> So in a sense Israel was "stuck" with the Westbank (and
later Gaza),
The West Bank cannot be safely given back; there is, in reality, no one
to give it back to. In addition, it is part of Jerusalem, which the Jews
ALWAYS intended to be a part (indeed its capital) of Israel. Since it is
impossible to have one without the other, I guess that Israel is indeed
"stuck" with the West Bank."
> and left with a PLO that was installed there by Egypt as a
spearhead in these "disputed areas" to continue their fight
against Israel and the destruction of it.
Now, this statement is totally incorrect. The PLO (and Arafat)
established itself on the West Bank and was financed by Jordan (along
with Egypt and other countries, which include the US) long before the
areas became disputed. In fact, one of Yoni Netanyahu's (the leader of
the Entebbe rescue) first duties while serving in the Army, took place
in the West Bank, prior to 1967. A side point, Arafat spearheaded the
hijacking that lead to the hostage situation in Entebbe - he was the one
who personally made the decision to start killing the Israelis, two at a
time every hour. The following quote is from Yoni's memorial site http://www.yoni.org.il
): "In June 1964, ... Yoni returned to Israel [from the US, and he]
became a platoon commander in the paratroopers. With the growing
escalation of terrorist attacks from across the borders, he saw action
in a retaliatory raid on a PLO stronghold in the West Bank, then held by
Jordan."
> Of course one could say that because of the Arab wars on Israel and
continuous intentions armed struggle.. including terror.. to destroy it,
the "right" of the Arabs to have the Westbank as part of the
Arab state within Palestine as mentioned in the Partition Plan of the
U.N. of 1947 has been nullified.
No, one can't say that the Arab "rights" to the West Bank were
nullified, as you call it, because they never had any rights to the West
Bank at all. They refused a "Palestinian State," (which would
have included that area) for the sorry reason that they would not accept
a state, if Israel were going to have a state, too! Land has never been
the "reason" for terror, although it is offered frequently
(and unfortunately accepted) as an excuse. Obviously, they did not have
that excuse before 1967, but it did not matter. Hatred needs no excuse
and it is not subject to reason.
Here are some facts about that "plan" that you mentioned so
glibly: "During the summer of 1948 [after the State of Israel was
declared], Count Folke Bernadotte was sent by the UN to Palestine to
mediate a truce and try to negotiate a settlement. Bernadotte's plan
called for the Jewish State to relinquish the Negev and Jerusalem to
Transjordan and to receive the western Galilee. This was similar to the
boundaries that had been proposed prior to the partition vote, and had
been rejected by all sides. Now, the proposal was being offered after
the Arabs had gone to war to prevent partition and a Jewish state had
been declared. [emphasis added] The Jews and Arabs both rejected the
plan.
Ironically, Bernadotte found little enthusiasm among the Arabs for
independence. He wrote in his diary: 'The Palestinian Arabs had at
present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any
specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab
state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as
though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be
quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.' " [http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com]
Moreover, just to round off this discussion about "rights" in
the settlements, I will include some quotes from the Koran, which
specifically refer to the rights of the Jews (not Muslims) to the land
of Israel.
Although the Koran acknowledges that Israel was intended to be a
homeland for the Jewish people, nowhere is there any mention of the
rights of followers of Islam to have a homeland in "Palestine"
(which is an artificial name which no historical or religious reference
for Muslims.) In fact, the Koran specifically acknowledges the rights of
the Jews when it is unequivocally stated that the Holy Land was uniquely
given to the Jews and to no other nation: "Remember, my people, the
favour which God has bestowed upon you. He has raised up prophets among
you, made you kings, and given you that which He has given to no other
nation. Enter, my people, the holy land which God has assigned for you.
Do not turn back, and thus lose all" (Koran, Sura 5:22).
Here is another relevant quote from the Koran: "We [the Almighty]
settled the Israelites in a secure land and provided them with good
things" (Koran, Sura 10:93). By attacking the Jews, the Arabs
violate the will of Allah, who promised a secure land for the Jews. The
Koran goes on to say: "Be courteous when you argue with the People
of the Book... Say: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to you.
Our God and your God is one. To Him we submit.'" (Koran, Sura
29:46). Moreover, there are lots more quotes along similar lines for
anyone who wants to check them out.
Since the Koran does mention places like Mecca and Medina; perhaps these
Muslims wanting a biblical homeland should head for Iraq and/or Saudi
Arabia. However, if they insist on living in "Palestine" then
they should return to Jordan (where many of the "refugees"
actually came from) because Jordan is as much "Palestine" as
Israel is. In fact, it is more, because it was created out of over 90%
of the land in the original Palestinian Mandate.
Israel managed to absorb nearly 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab
countries (without UN aid or support, I might add) while the vast lands
of the Arab countries have never been used for any of the Arab refugees
(does anyone notice any discrepancies here?) All of the Arabs have been
kept in camps as living political propaganda because that is there only
use and purpose as far as the Arab leaders are concerned.
In point of fact, I do pity the Arab civilians, but for the shabby way
they have always been treated by their own leaders, not for the
non-existent acts of brutality and repression that the Israelis have
been falsely accused of. As for the Arab leaders and the homicide
bombers - I wish them all severe cases of leprosy (the traditional
biblical punishment!)