They were not part of Israel between 1948-1967 because, in violation and contravention of the UN recommendation of Partition of November 29, 1947, Arabs launched an aggressive war and Israel was not capable, militarily, of maintaining any control therein.
In 1967, following further Arab aggression and an unending terror campaign, both of fedayeen and the PLO for the previous 19 years, Israel assumed administration over Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Deputy-Minister Danny Ayalon has recently produced a video arguing for and explaining why these territories should be considered "disputed" and surely not "occupied". Over the past 40 years we have come to hear other terms: "Occupied", "Disputed" or "Administered".
But could they be "liberated"?
Consider this (thanks to Howard Grief):
The goal envisaged by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by German ambition is the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.
In pursuit of those intentions, France and Great Britain agree to further and assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia which have already been liberated by the Allies, as well as in those territories which they are engaged in securing and recognizing these as soon as they are actually established.
Far from wishing to impose on the populations of those regions any particular institutions they are only concerned to ensure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves; to secure impartial and equal justice for all; to facilitate the economic development of the country by promoting and encouraging local initiative; to foster the spread of education; and to put an end to the dissensions which Turkish policy has for so long exploited. Such is the task which the two Allied Powers wish to undertake in the liberated territories.
So, they really could be liberated territories.
^
Posts
5 comments:
I fail to follow the logic of the argument that the allies considered the territories “liberated” when they captured them from the Ottomans prior to 1919 and therefore the should be considered “liberated” when Israel captured them in 1967.
Worse: the example shows that considering territories “liberated” does not in any way block them also being considered “occupied” under international law. After all, when Britain captured the “liberated” territories, it imposed a military occupation government.
They have been "liberated" from 2,000 years of foreign occupation:
Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Muslim,and European.
It was "before" June of 1967 that these lands and Jerusalem were occupied.
In June 1967, for the first time in 2,000 years all of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were no longer under foreign "occupation", but restored to Israel.
the supposed neutral term like "Arab-Israeli conflict" is in fact a deceptive label, as it makes it sound as if both sides were equally to blame for this decade's-long war, and must therefore be brought to compromise by splitting the differences between them.
By the same token, the description of the "territories" (i.e., Judea Samaria & Gaza) as "disputed" is just as deceptive in telling the true story about the situation here.
Never once has any Arab spokesperson been able to show a Palestinian Arab claim to the land of Judea,Samaria & Gaza based on historical fact .
This is so, simply bcs they can't show claim that our land was ever their independently governed entity.
It is self evident that there was & there is no legitimate territorial "dispute". "Disputed" in all the contexts used to express description of these territories makes it seem that they have as much right to our land as we do.
However, there is absolutely no moral equivalence here.
It is true that they want our land (all of it). Just because someone wants what you have does not mean that you have automatically enjoined with that person in a proper "dispute"'. It does mean that perhaps if you want to be r-e-a-l nice to a well behaved person who wants some of it, you might magnanimously give of what you have.
Again, if we decide to be "real nice", maybe we will give some of what we have at the right time & when their conduct can be rewarded.
This for the sake of 'Du Kiyum Muchrach' (necessary mutual coexistence), when they will perhaps re-develop into well behaved guests who we will let dwell in some rooms of our house.
CONT'D
CONT'D
We will not "give back" any of what we have, because you can't "give back"
what you've gotten back.
( Why, by neglect or otherwise, we ever confessed for so many years to false accusations that we have "'occupied" their territories, is the stuff of a Ken Levin analysis and the heavy baggage of "Jewish Guilt Oslo style++ that created this "Palestinian People" ) .
The Israeli MFA has finally came out officially against using the description of "occupied territories"
but now they are still suffering from that same psyche by agreeing
(succumbing) to call our land "disputed territories".* One would think that by now we are ready for a new healthier mind set and we should not transgress on ourselves any longer.-- Our survival depends on putting our case in order with the truth once & for all.
All it takes is for us to learn by now to use the tools of our enemies that have successfully duped the world. They have repeated lies & ignored the truth until they have had the world accept " FalseFacts" as truth. It's about time that we should repeatedly ignore the lies & repeat the truths without a stop to counter propaganda & establish truth.
Admit that it's "disputed" territories & you give legitimacy to the Arab War Against Israel as a "conflict" giving their war against us a moral equivalence.
We can easily avoid using inaccurate terms that are used by our enemies to hurt us. These areas do not need a label - they are what they are - YESHA is fine for Judea, Samaria & Gaza. If you're concerned about sounding too "Right" (since their successful propaganda has labeled YESHA as the expression of the "extreme")---- "West Bank" might pass for Judea & Samaria, but only if qualified at the beginning of an article like a lawyer's document, i.e., West Bank (Judea & Samaria) and "West Bank" in quotes could be OK.
-There is absolutely no moral equivalence to the situation.
- Just because they say it's "Disputed" doesn't mean it is so -The Arabs have never proven & can never show historical claim that our land was their independent state, as no Arab people ever had a sovereign entity within the boundaries of our biblical homeland.
-We can easily prove that all of it is ours, as it is an a priori historical fact.
-We didn't start a war, they did.
-We are not chasing them out. They want us out.
-We don't want war.
-It is their war against us
It's time for all of us to put a stop to this nonsense ! No more helping our enemies to destroy us also with words.
PS - Look even if dealing with a questionable population-squatters rights argument or the like, we just cannot allow ourselves to say that our claim is "disputed".
It is another term that must be removed from the lexicon of Israel's narrative..
Post a Comment