The shell-game of it is that, according to the PA and Hamas, the “settlements” mean all of Israel, from the river to the sea, and not just Judea and Samaria.
This is the major difference that so many fail to acknowledge. Israel are willing to live in peace next to the ‘Palestinians’. But the ‘Palestinians’ want the entire region from the river to the sea. One side is willing to compromise for peace, the other side is not.
You wrote: "Ironically it was as a result of the 6-day war where ‘Palestinian’ guerrilla groups based in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan attacked Israel. As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control over the Sinai peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."
Yes, you call this the 6-day war (6-Day War) and then you say "As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control' -- no, as a result of the war, Israel liberated/regained control/recaptured Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank, as the Jordanian occupiers renamed it), the Gaza Strip, and the eastern neighbourhoods of Jerualem and, most importantly, the Old City of Jerusalem. They captured the Sinai peninsula as well. I have not yet explored the earlier status of the Golan before it was in Syrian hands so I cannot say anything about that until I do.
Our building communities in Judea-Samaria is not primarily for security reasons as you write. It is primarily because that is the seat of our indigenous homeland. That is where our ancestors established our peoplehood. Our sacred sites are there. Ancient Jewish villages that were wiped out by Arab colonialists (from the Arab Conquest in the 600s and then in 1948) are there. It is part of our homeland. And....as things stand now, with Arabs still intent on wiping us out, our communities there do serve as a buffer for the narrow densely populated center of the country. But security is not the reason for their re-establishment any more than Haifa and Tel Aviv are there for security reasons.
You write: "There are numerous reports of ‘Palestinians’ living in the rural areas of the region who are fearful of Jewish settler violence and displacements due to aggressive West Bank Outposts operators." Here you show you have fallen for the propaganda. The 'Palestinians' do not fear Jewish settler violence -- they instigate it. They provoke it so that then they can film Jews being violent to show the world and increase opposition to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria. I have done a few reports on how they do this (here is one: https://ozsheri.substack.com/p/revisiting-my-investigation-into) and I will repost more of them on substack in the coming weeks. I have not yet investigated the recent attack in Jitt and it does appear to be a rare instance of pure Jewish vigilantism. (NOTE: rare)
And why do you keep calling Judea-Samaria by the occupation name, the west bank? The real name for the region is Judea and Samaria. It is important that we stop using the occupation name, just like we have stopped calling the the Inuit 'Eskimos.'
Great explanations. If I might add— settlements have nothing to do with peace although that seems to be a talking point amongst the uninformed. The IDF evicted 9000 Israelis from their homes in Gaza in exchange for peace. Guess what happened to those homes? Did the Palestinians move in? No. They took hammers and destroyed the apartments. It wasn’t that they wanted the homes/land for themselves they just didn’t want the Jews to have it. PS We know what happened after that.
West Bank— settlements are in area C which is comprised of 60% of the WB. The other 40% are zones A and B. A is 18% and completely independent of Israel.
Well said with clarity on a complicated issue. Your less informed readers should also understand that territories occupied by Jordan in 1948 included ancient Jewish communities, from which Jews were ethnically cleansed. Israel’s victory in 1967 meant the return of Jews to those communities and the reunification of the two artificially separated halves of Jerusalem, from which Jews were also expelled. Up to 1948, Jerusalem was a unified majority-Jewish city, not “East” and “West” - like East and West Germany after WW2. I’m so tired of people claiming Arabs have a right to sovereignty in “East Jerusalem”. And I would also reverse your statement about the West Bank ie “Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank)” - that’s historically accurate.
One more thing. After the October 7 attack is precisely the wrong time to “talk about,” still less make any concessions on, the settlements; because in that event the attack will have succeeded in wringing concessions from Israel, and will be at least a partial victory. Which will encourage more of the same, forever.
Under the partition of 1947, from the river to the sea is Israeli.
Under the international law principle Uti Possidetis, until changed by treaty from the river to the sea is Israeli.
Invasion and occupation cannot change it. In particular the 1948 Arab invasion and occupation up to the 1949 armistice lines—not borders—until 1967 is legally null and void. Though Israel has chosen not to poke the bear politically by making a declaration, from the river to the sea is still Israeli.
And, legally, any foreign people who live therein do so at Israeli sufferance. And anywhere within it Israel allows Israelis to settle is as of right.
The damned U.N. and the “world community” to the contrary notwithstanding. <Expletive> them.
The shell-game of it is that, according to the PA and Hamas, the “settlements” mean all of Israel, from the river to the sea, and not just Judea and Samaria.
This is the major difference that so many fail to acknowledge. Israel are willing to live in peace next to the ‘Palestinians’. But the ‘Palestinians’ want the entire region from the river to the sea. One side is willing to compromise for peace, the other side is not.
Just a few refinements to your article....
You wrote: "Ironically it was as a result of the 6-day war where ‘Palestinian’ guerrilla groups based in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan attacked Israel. As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control over the Sinai peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."
Yes, you call this the 6-day war (6-Day War) and then you say "As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control' -- no, as a result of the war, Israel liberated/regained control/recaptured Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank, as the Jordanian occupiers renamed it), the Gaza Strip, and the eastern neighbourhoods of Jerualem and, most importantly, the Old City of Jerusalem. They captured the Sinai peninsula as well. I have not yet explored the earlier status of the Golan before it was in Syrian hands so I cannot say anything about that until I do.
Our building communities in Judea-Samaria is not primarily for security reasons as you write. It is primarily because that is the seat of our indigenous homeland. That is where our ancestors established our peoplehood. Our sacred sites are there. Ancient Jewish villages that were wiped out by Arab colonialists (from the Arab Conquest in the 600s and then in 1948) are there. It is part of our homeland. And....as things stand now, with Arabs still intent on wiping us out, our communities there do serve as a buffer for the narrow densely populated center of the country. But security is not the reason for their re-establishment any more than Haifa and Tel Aviv are there for security reasons.
You write: "There are numerous reports of ‘Palestinians’ living in the rural areas of the region who are fearful of Jewish settler violence and displacements due to aggressive West Bank Outposts operators." Here you show you have fallen for the propaganda. The 'Palestinians' do not fear Jewish settler violence -- they instigate it. They provoke it so that then they can film Jews being violent to show the world and increase opposition to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria. I have done a few reports on how they do this (here is one: https://ozsheri.substack.com/p/revisiting-my-investigation-into) and I will repost more of them on substack in the coming weeks. I have not yet investigated the recent attack in Jitt and it does appear to be a rare instance of pure Jewish vigilantism. (NOTE: rare)
And why do you keep calling Judea-Samaria by the occupation name, the west bank? The real name for the region is Judea and Samaria. It is important that we stop using the occupation name, just like we have stopped calling the the Inuit 'Eskimos.'
Thank you Sheri.
The shell game of it is, the PA and Hamas define the “settlements “ as all of Israel from the river to the sea, and not just in Judea and Samaria.
Great explanations. If I might add— settlements have nothing to do with peace although that seems to be a talking point amongst the uninformed. The IDF evicted 9000 Israelis from their homes in Gaza in exchange for peace. Guess what happened to those homes? Did the Palestinians move in? No. They took hammers and destroyed the apartments. It wasn’t that they wanted the homes/land for themselves they just didn’t want the Jews to have it. PS We know what happened after that.
West Bank— settlements are in area C which is comprised of 60% of the WB. The other 40% are zones A and B. A is 18% and completely independent of Israel.
Thank you for adding that info 🙏🏻
Beautifully written and well explained 👍🏾 thank you. Original Israel was far larger and there were Israeli tribes living on both sides of the river.
As long as Safe for Israelis to return too. Hopefully.
Well said with clarity on a complicated issue. Your less informed readers should also understand that territories occupied by Jordan in 1948 included ancient Jewish communities, from which Jews were ethnically cleansed. Israel’s victory in 1967 meant the return of Jews to those communities and the reunification of the two artificially separated halves of Jerusalem, from which Jews were also expelled. Up to 1948, Jerusalem was a unified majority-Jewish city, not “East” and “West” - like East and West Germany after WW2. I’m so tired of people claiming Arabs have a right to sovereignty in “East Jerusalem”. And I would also reverse your statement about the West Bank ie “Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank)” - that’s historically accurate.
Thank you Elliot 🙏🏻🤍
That was an amazing read. Thank you. 💕
One more thing. After the October 7 attack is precisely the wrong time to “talk about,” still less make any concessions on, the settlements; because in that event the attack will have succeeded in wringing concessions from Israel, and will be at least a partial victory. Which will encourage more of the same, forever.
Here is my view, which is a bit different.
Under the partition of 1947, from the river to the sea is Israeli.
Under the international law principle Uti Possidetis, until changed by treaty from the river to the sea is Israeli.
Invasion and occupation cannot change it. In particular the 1948 Arab invasion and occupation up to the 1949 armistice lines—not borders—until 1967 is legally null and void. Though Israel has chosen not to poke the bear politically by making a declaration, from the river to the sea is still Israeli.
And, legally, any foreign people who live therein do so at Israeli sufferance. And anywhere within it Israel allows Israelis to settle is as of right.
The damned U.N. and the “world community” to the contrary notwithstanding. <Expletive> them.
To be honest neither do I.