I Am Interviewed in Italian

I was text interviewed for an Italian outlet. I received an email, responded, was asked two additional questions of clarification and here I am: (translation via ChatGPT)

[For text of the full correspondence, see at end]

Israeli settler: “The violent ones? Three hundred young men”

Journalist Medad even denies the Palestinian question: “We have the right to live here”

Rome, August 17, 2026 — First he uses international law as his argument. Then, when it is pointed out to him that the League of Nations has not existed for quite some time, he moves onto the terrain of history. Yisrael Medad, an Israeli journalist, settler from Shiloh and a historian who supports the settlements in the West Bank, has one virtue: clarity. He finds surprising analogies between the Holy Land and our own country. And, according to him, the solution to the Palestinian question is “Italian” as well.

Medad, on what basis does an Israeli claim the right to live and build in the West Bank, which much of the international community considers occupied Palestinian territory?

“The fact that the international community considers Judea and Samaria occupied territories does not mean that they are. In 1922, fifty-five countries of the League of Nations recognized the right of the Jews to reestablish their historic national homeland.”

But the UN Security Council subsequently stated that settlements in territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and in 2024 the International Court of Justice ruled that the settlement policy is contrary to international law.

“I do not base the rights of the Jews on the League of Nations or on the UN Security Council. The right exists and is applicable even without recognition. It is based on three thousand years of Jewish presence in the land of kings, priests and prophets, psalms and revolts, olive trees and vineyards.”

If this right applies to Israelis, what equivalent right do you recognize for Palestinians who have lived there for generations?

“Arabs, like Druze and anyone else, can live there. But they do not have the right to carry out terrorist acts against Jews, which they have been doing since 1920.”

Terrorism: the same term used to describe the siege of Qusra by the American ambassador to Israel. Do you think the definition should change if the aggressor is Israeli?

“It should not change. Anyone who attacks civilians is a terrorist. Huckabee, however, is wrong in how he characterizes certain incidents; one has to have a sense of proportion. I checked, for example, the statistics on sexual violence in Italy: would it be justified to call Lombards ‘sexual terrorists’ because many cases are reported in Lombardy? No.”

But Palestinians repeatedly report assaults, arson and attacks on villages.

“All violence is wrong. But there is much more violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews, and it is also more lethal. I am surprised that the world's attention is so one-sided.”

When Palestinian villages are attacked, don't you think that the settler movement bears political responsibility?

“No. That violence is the result of the failure of the education provided by parents and religious authority. I must, however, emphasize that Arab violence is tolerated and even praised, especially in Europe, by ‘progressive’ forces. This makes it difficult to explain here to these 300 young men that violence does not work.”

You speak of Judea and Samaria as part of the Land of Israel. Does that mean that, in your view, there should not be a Palestinian state in the West Bank?

“Exactly. I am convinced that the real objective of the Palestinians is not to have their own state, which they could have had in 1937, 1947 and 1967, but to deny the Jews a state.”

But if you reject the two-state solution outright, what is the concrete alternative for millions of Palestinians?

“We could try autonomy and see what happens.”

Can Israelis and Palestinians really coexist in the same territory without having the same rights?

“If there were no terrorism and incitement to violence, there would be no restrictions. In Italy, for example, millions of foreigners live without Italian citizenship.”

What is the political objective of the settler movement?

“To guarantee the continuity of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.”

The problem is how. Imagine that your political vision were fully realized: twenty years from now, who would govern the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?

“Israel will be the sovereign power. An Arab could be an Israeli citizen, or a resident without citizenship, or could once again become a Jordanian citizen. Or perhaps we could learn something from South Tyrol.”

“If he says so.” [Se lo dice lui — the journalist's closing, slightly ironic, comment.]

And here are a couple of nuances in the Italian (added by ChatGPT)

There are a few places where the Italian framing is somewhat sharper than your actual answers:

• “nega persino la questione palestinese” literally means “even denies the Palestinian question.” That is the journalist's characterization; your answer itself does not deny that Palestinians exist or that they have rights to live there.
• “I violenti? Trecento ragazzi” is a headline, roughly “The violent ones? Three hundred young men.” It refers to your statement that it is difficult to explain to “these 300 young men” that violence does not work.
• “colono” means “settler.” It is not necessarily derogatory in Italian, but colono israeliano is the terminology the newspaper chose.
• Your South Tyrol/Alto Adige analogy is particularly interesting because it invokes a model of territorial autonomy within a sovereign state rather than partition into two sovereign states.

Also, the headline “abbiamo diritto a vivere qui” (“we have the right to live here”) is not actually a verbatim quotation appearing in your answers as reproduced below it; it is the newspaper's headline characterization of your position.

P.S. My final line to him was:

"Of course, I have kept my replies short and concise but the issue is quite complicated."

I do not think I convinced him of the practicality that a democratic, binational society in which Jews and Arabs live together without ethnic domination cannot exist.

-----

I found there this interview too: (translation via ChatGPT)

West Bank, No Other Land activist: “An ethnic-cleansing campaign is underway”

Huraini, Palestinian reporter: “There is no everyday life there; Israeli settlers continue with complete impunity.”

Rome, August 17, 2026 —

“On the 19th of last month, late at night, more than 40 masked Israeli settlers broke into At-Tuwani. I was with my cousins when we heard desperate screams coming from my house: they were my sisters. They were sleeping when the settlers began smashing the windows in order to throw gasoline inside. They wanted to burn my family members alive.

For the first time in my life I felt completely helpless: I was alone against forty of them, and the only ‘weapon’ I had in my hand was my camera. My neighbor lost the baby she was carrying because of the terror of those scenes.”

It is through his own story that Mohammad Hesham Huraini, a Palestinian reporter and activist from Masafer Yatta, describes the West Bank today. Huraini collaborated on No Other Land, the Oscar-winning documentary.

“A huge campaign of ethnic cleansing is being carried out by Israeli settlers with complete impunity.”

What is everyday life like there?

“There is no everyday life. We wake up in the morning to demolitions and in the evening we witness pogroms. We cannot even move from one village to another because of army and police roadblocks and the continuous attacks by settlers. Going to the doctor or buying food is an ordeal.”

How do the people who live there make a living?

“Securing an income is complicated. Since October 7, 2023, most of the people who worked inside ‘48”—in Palestinian terminology, the Israeli territory within the Green Line—“have lost their jobs and no one has been able to return there.”

Are you more afraid of violence, or of gradually being forced to abandon those lands?

“The greatest fear is facing the daily threat of death.”

U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee has called those responsible for the siege “Israeli terrorists.” Can words like these really make a difference?

“They are important, but they are not enough. Real pressure is needed from the European governments and the United States.”

Israel will go to the polls again on October 27. Do you hope the election can change anything?

“For the Palestinians, little or nothing will change. The settlers are taking advantage of the election period: they know that the government needs their votes, so they attack knowing that they will never be stopped.”

Do you still believe that Israelis and Palestinians can live together?

“Every time a solution has been proposed, Israel has destroyed it because it does not believe in peace, but only in the displacement of Palestinians. We are human beings, not numbers.”

After the Oscar, it seemed that the world had become aware of No Other Land. Do the people who live there feel that anyone is still watching?

“Precisely after that recognition, the filmmakers became the principal targets of attacks, arrests and detentions. The 96 minutes of the documentary showed our past life; the reality we have been experiencing from October 7 until today is even more insane and brutal than what was shown in the film.”

You mentioned October 7. Beyond the horror, don't you think that massacre caused enormous political and moral damage to the Palestinian cause?

“I prefer not to answer this question because the issue is not about October 7: the occupation already existed beforehand, as did the attacks, pogroms and killings of Palestinians.”

And ChatGPT added

A couple of points worth noting

The Italian interviewer uses “pogrom” (pogrom) in the questions/description as well as Huraini using the term in his answer. I have retained it rather than softening it to “attacks.”

Also, “inside the ‘48” is Huraini's terminology for Israel within the Green Line. The Italian journalist actually inserts an explanatory parenthesis making this explicit.

One potentially important point for your purposes: the article is not an independent report of the alleged July 19 incident. It is an interview in which Huraini gives his own account and characterization of events. The article does not provide corroborating evidence for his claims about the settlers, nor does it present an Israeli response.

_________________________________

My responses to a questionaire sent by Antonio Del Prete, Responsabile Redazione Interni/Esteri - QN Quotidiano Nazionale, in Bologna, Italy:

Dear Antonio, 

Allow me to respond from my personal/private gmail as I am retired from the Begin Center (although I still do research there) and my opinions are solely mine.

"Let me startt with the fundamental question: why should an Israeli have the right to live and build in the West Bank, in territory that most of the international community regards as occupied? Is that right historical, religious, legal or political?  

That the international community regards Judea and Samaria as occupied does not make those territories so. They may be technically under belligerent occupation but that is but a legal technicality. In 1922, based on the San Remo Conference of April 1920, the right of Jews to reestablish their historic national homeland was recognized in international law by 55 nations of the League of Nations. By the way, at San Remo, Italy played an important part. The official minutes for 25 April 1920, when the Palestine mandate resolution was adopted, list Francesco Saverio Nitti — Prime Minister, and chairman of the meeting; Vittorio Scialoja — Foreign Minister and Italian secretaries: Garbasso, Galli, Trombetti and Lt. Zanchi who were present at the San Remo Conference. That, of course, followed the 1919 Versailles Peace Treaty. The right to reside in these areas is the natural, historical, legal and religious right of Jews based on a 3,000 presence in the Land, of kings and priests and prophets, of psalms and revolts, of olives and grapes - and a constant residency even after dispersion and conquest all throughout the centuries, especially in Jerusalem and Hebron.

If that right applies to Israelis, what equivalent right do you recognise for Palestinians who have lived there for generations? When those rights clash, who should decide which one prevails? 

Arabs - and Druze and anyone else - can live there. One right they do not possess is to conduct terror against Jews which they have been doing since 1920.

You speak of Judea and Samaria as part of the Land of Israel. Does that mean that, in your view, there should ultimately be no Palestinian state in the West Bank? 

Yes. I am convinced their utmost goal is not their own state - which they could have had in 1937, 1947, 1967 and so forth - but to deny Jews a state. I do not need to reward them for their failure to eliminate Jews. They could have had autonomy of a condominium with Jordan. It's their choice to keep losing. Besides, the two-state solution is actually a four-state solution as Jordan, separated from the Palestine Mandate in 1922 by Churchill, is properly "Palestinian" (and so is the majority of its population if we want to be exact) and Gaza will never accept rule by the PLO in Ramallah. And besides, why should there be three Arab uni-ethnic states but just one Israel with 20% Arab population?

If the two-state solution is dead, what is the concrete alternative for millions of Palestinians? 

Israeli citizenship with full political rights, limited autonomy, or permanent life without sovereignty? We could try autonomy and see what happens. Unfortunately, after 30 years+ since Oslo they have done abolsutley nothing in state-building.

Can coexistence genuinely exist when Israelis and Palestinians living in the same territory are subject to different legal systems, different restrictions on movement and different levels of protection? 

A. if there was no terror, incitement to violence, there would be no restrictions. 

B. Did you know that as of January 1, 2026, ISTAT (the Italian National Institute of Statistics) reported that 5,560,000 foreign residents with non-Italian citizenship live in Italy, making up about 9.4% of the country's total population? I presume they all have mostly the same rights except for voting and being elected. I am sure similar situations exist all over Europe. It could work in Israel + Judea and Samaria as well. By the way, I am not at all convinced there is a separate, distinct national grouping called 'Palestinian Arabs'.

Palestinians argue that the expansion of settlements, outposts and roads is making territorial separation physically impossible. Is creating an irreversible reality on the ground part of the political objective? 

It should be.

How do you judge violence committed by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, and how significant do you believe this phenomenon is today in the West Bank? 

All violence is wrong, immoral and criminal unless exercised by authoritative state agencies. As there is much more violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews - more deadly, too - I am amazed of the world's attention being one-sided.

When fields are burned, residents assaulted or Palestinian villages attacked, does the settlement movement bear any political responsibility beyond the criminal responsibility of the individuals involved? Directly? 

No. It is a failure of education, parental guidance and religious authority. It is a wrong ideological orientation and immoral. However, I must point out that Arab violence is tolerated and even praised especially in Europe by 'progressive' forces which makes it difficult here to tell these 300 youngsters that violence doesn't work. 

Mike Huckabee, who has long been one of the strongest American supporters of the settlement movement, has used the word “terrorism” in relation to violence by Israelis against Palestinians. If the same act were committed by a Palestinian against an Israeli family, it would certainly be called terrorism. Why should the definition change when the attacker is Israeli? 

He was wrong, as he was at the incident in Taybeh [https://tps.co.il/articles/burning-questions-what-really-happened-at-taybehs-church/]. No definition should change. Persons attacking civilians uninvolved in violence are engaging in terror. Of course, there is also perspective and proportion. I checked stats for sexual violence in Italy and found that in 2024, 6,831 rapes occurred in the country. Lombardy was the region with the highest reports nationwide, with over one thousand cases of sexual violence in 2022. Would I be justified in thinking Lombardy people are sexual terrorists? P.S. I wouldn't.

Palestinians also describe a more gradual form of pressure: grazing livestock next to homes, blocking access, intimidation and repeated harassment until families eventually leave. If the result is the depopulation of a Palestinian community, is that not a form of displacement? 

A. As Regavim has been reporting for years, Arabs are being funded to move into Area C and take over state land. There is a counter move on. Almost all of the incidents involve this type of Arab incursion, but not all. 

B. In 1948, some 15,000 Jews were displaced from Jerusalem, its neighborhoods and other communities due to the Jordanian invasion and subsequent illegal occupation. Did they have rights? Why not?

What, ultimately, is the political objective of the settlement movement? To live alongside Palestinians, to incorporate the West Bank permanently into Israel, or to create a Jewish-majority territory in which the Palestinian presence is progressively reduced? 

I would think to assure continued Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. If I can quote Ze'ev Jabotinsky from 1923: "I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo. But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism."

Imagine that your political vision is fully realised. Twenty years from now, what does the map between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea look like? And what status does a Palestinian currently living in Tuba, Qusra or Al-Mughayyir have? 

Israel is the sovereign power there and the Arab in Qusra is either a citizen of Israel, a resident non-citizen or a re-citizen of Jordan (Arabs there possessed Jordanian citizenship until 1988) or perhaps we could learn from South Tyrol?

Of course, I have kept my replies short and concise but the issue is quite complicated.

P.S. 

Oh. And one more thing, a "der Treppenwitz" matter, regarding "settlement". 

It is a legal right guaranteed to the Jews as found in Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine decision:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

And, of course, the territory then of the Jewish historic homeland envisioned was at least from the sea to the Jordan River.

There was a follow-up:

Thank you very much for your previous answers and for taking the time to respond so fully. I would be grateful if you could also answer these two follow-up questions:

You base the legal right of Jews to settle in the West Bank on Article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. However, the UN Security Council has repeatedly taken a different position: Resolution 446 stated that Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that they constitute a flagrant violation of international law. In 2024, the International Court of Justice also found Israel’s settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory to be contrary to international law. On what legal basis do you consider a provision of the 1922 Mandate to remain controlling today while rejecting these subsequent UN resolutions and the conclusions of the ICJ?

​A. To be precise: I do not base the Jews' right on the League of Nations nor the UN Security Council. They recognized that right. That right exists and is applicable even without that recognition, or for that matter, non-recognition. I am sure Italians did not need, for example, Garibaldi's One Thousand volunteers in 1860-61 to create a right to a united Italy. 

The same Article 6 that you cite also states that Jewish settlement should be encouraged while ensuring that “the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.” How do you reconcile that condition with settlement expansion, restrictions on access to land and the displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank?

​If you review that entire decision, Arabs are not mentioned once. Not at all. The League of Nations knew of Jews and non-Jews: Arabs, Germans, Armenians, Turks, Italians, Christians (of a half-dozen denominations), Alawites, Bahais, Sunni & Shi'ite Muslims. ​All were "existing non-Jewish communities".  Arabs were awarded after WW One Saudi Arabia, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan from the former Ottoman Empire, not to mention the later Arab states of today, almost 30 in North Africa and Middle East including a few countries built entirely around oil refineries. There was no "Palestinian people/nation" then for sure.

^

Jews Supporting Judea and Samaria in 1862

The report on charity endeavors for Jews in Eretz-Yisrael in the year 1862, including Hebron, from the Occidental - American Jewish Advocate:

^

The Post-1967 Origin of "Judea and Samaria"

I have translated this blog post from the Hebrew (found here), with my additions is brackets []:

January 26, 2016
West Bank, Judea and Samaria, or Yehuda and Ephraim: 
How was the name Judea and Samaria defined?


A few days ago, Brigadier General (res.) Ephraim Lapid asked us when the name of the "West Bank" was changed to "Judea and Samaria"? As a result, we embarked on a small study.

During the Six-Day War, the IDF took control of the western part of the Kingdom of Jordan, that area west of the Jordan River, officially named by the Jordanians as "the West Bank" [after its 'annexation'] [and see text here]. 

On June 7, 1967, Major General Haim Herzog was appointed commander of IDF forces in the region The West Bank, which was held by the IDF (and then completed his term as the national radio announcer.) This area also included East Jerusalem before the decision to unify it with West Jerusalem (June 28, 1967). A week later, Herzog finished his position and his powers were transferred to Major General Central Command Uzi Narkis.

However, some Israelis were uncomfortable with the use of the name "West Bank" because the name testified to the acceptance of Jordanian rule in this area - although almost all the countries of the world refused to recognize de jure Jordanian rule in that area. A study of the "Historical Jewish Press" website (which does not include the newspapers Haaretz [now, yes] and Yedioth Ahronoth) shows that from the end of August 1967, the phrase "Judea and Samaria" began to penetrate the public discourse, for example an article by Hannah Zemer in Davar of September 8. [I found one in LaMerchav on August 25; and on July 11, 1948, Maariv, quoting Reuters, complained about Glubb Pasha taking over the hills of "Judea and Samaria"] On December 27, 1967, Davar reported the appointment of Col. Rehavia Vardi as Commander of the Judea and Samaria Region, in which, from June 1967 until December 1967, the term "Judea and Samaria" was mentioned 22 times, while the phrase "West Bank" was mentioned 1,121 times in the first half of 1968 [at least]. The references to "Judea and Samaria" rose to 75 times, while references to the "West Bank" dropped to 202 times.

On February 5, 1968, MK Eliezer Shostak, a member of the "Free Center" faction that advocated the idea of ​​a "Greater Israel," tabled a parliamentary question in which he protested the use of the term "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria" by government ministers and spokesmen. Eshkol replied: "The official name used by government ministries and the IDF is Judea and Samaria. It is difficult for me to enter into historical research, ... or to enter into gynecology - how the name 'West Bank' was born"("Divrei HaKnesset ", p. 915-914). The Minister of Defense, Moshe Dayan, stated the next day: "I do not imagine that it is possible to remove from the sphere of connection of the Jewish people in their homeland the same areas of Judea and Samaria that were the cradle of the Jewish people" (Davar, 7.2.1968).

Dr. Haim Gavriahu, chairman of the Bible Research Society and former head of the Bible Lectures at David Ben-Gurion's home, appealed the name "Judea and Samaria" on the grounds that the person who gave the area the name Shomron was the Assyrians and appealed to Dayan to adopt "and Ephraim". As a result, on May 23, Dayan approached the government secretary, Yael Uzai, and asked the government to discuss the matter (this document and the other documents in this post are taken from file 6432/30). Eshkol apparently was not enthusiastic about bringing the matter up for discussion in the government plenum for fear that such a discussion would ignite a dispute between the ministers. He therefore instructed Ozai to consult with the Rector of the Hebrew University, Professor Nathan Rotenstreich, who replied that he intended to discuss this with Prof. Benjamin Mazar. On July 9, Rotenstreich replied that Mazar recommended using the term "Judea and Samaria" because the person who gave the area the name "Samaria" was king Omri 

and Uzai gave the answer to Dayan and added that the matter would be referred to the government Names Committee. Dayan agreed to transfer the matter to the Government Names Committee, provided that it did not delay its decision. It should be noted that the geographer Professor David Amiran also objected to the name "Yehuda and Ephraim" and addressed Eshkol on this issue - while apologizing to his office manager Aviad Yaffe for disturbing the Prime Minister.

Following the receipt of Mazar's opinion, Uzai turned to Dr. Avraham Biran, chairman of the Government Names Committee. On July 22, 1968, committee coordinator Reuven Alkalai replied that the committee had determined that the area would be called "Judea and Samaria". Uzai distributed the information to Aviad Yaffe and Shlomo Shlomo Gazit from the Defense Ministry. Alkalai also distributed the decision to the Government Press Office. The newspaper Ma'ariv also reported this on July 28. On July 30, Aviad Yaffe announced to Yael Ozai that the prime minister had authorized the publication of the committee's decision. The next day, Yafe sent a letter to Prof. Amiran in which he reported to him that the Government Names Committee had decided to accept the name "Judea and Samaria".

_______________

P.S.

I found, in a letter to the editor expressing wishes for the New Year published in Herut, October 7, 1951, the term "Judea and Samaria:

reading "and a day will yet come, and we will again break through eastward, and we'll ascend the hills and mountains, and again lights will be lit on the New Year on the hills of Judea and Samaria..."


P.P.S.  The 1946 Palestine Survey notes "Samaria" as an administrative district.

More mentions there of "Judea and Samaria" and not one of "West Bank":

There was, however, a "Western Palestine" (meaning Eastern Palestine was the other part of the same country)

^

What's in the Naming of a Name

The new jointly collaborated on hasbarist effort of T'ruah and Breaking the Silence has a section called

The Ideology of Naming: What We Call A Place Matters

which reads

Because our thoughts can’t exist independent of language, the words we use to label places and activities shape how we see them. “West Bank,” perhaps the most neutral of the terms in use, simply refers geographically to the west bank of the Jordan River. The biblical name “Judea and Samaria,” which highlights the belief that God gave this land to the Jews, became an official Israeli government term in 1968, though it came into popular usage only under the 1977 Likud government. Today the settler movement and most official Israeli government publications prefer this term.

.
My reaction:

a) "West Bank" is not at all the most neutral. It is a term created in April 1950 to disguise a violation of the UN's recommended idea of creating an "Arab State" out of the Palestine Mandate. Jordan illegally entered that territory, conquered it, occupied it and then annexed it on April 24.

b) "Judea and Samaria" are not only names found in the Bible, but in the New Testament and throughout history to describe the Jewish People's historic heartland.

In fact, they're in that 1947 partition recommendation I referenced in (a) above, in the section laying out the borders: Part II Boundaries.

So, T'ruah is either lying, fudging, or they really know little of what they write.

Or all three.

They are using language to bamboozle.

Don't be.

^

On A Name Change: Judea and Samaria

I, along with many others, refer to areas of the historic Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), that region which the international legal and diplomatic community in 1920 (San Remo) and 1922 (League of Nations) recognized should be reconstituted as the Jewish National Home, which lie outside the borders of sovereign Israel, as Judea and Samaria.

They were termed that even in the United Nations' partition plan.

Historical geography experts attest to the use of Judea and Samaria throughout the ages.

We all know that Palestine as the name for the country began in 135 CE by Roman occupiers.

Filastin is not even an Arabic word.

But for many, the area is either the West Bank or Palestinian Territories (see the itinerary of Prince William's upcoming visit).

The West Bank was coined only in April 1950 when Jordan, the illegal occupier, annexed the region and so called it.

Is there hope that the original genuine terms will return?

Perhaps.

Read on:

Ever since the Republic of Macedonia declared its independence in 1991, Greece has been fighting the country over its name. Today the 27-year impasse ended as two nations finally came to a resolution: The former Yugoslav republic is getting a new name, the Republic of North Macedonia.

"There is no way back," Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev said in a press conference, Reuters reports, after he spoke with his Greek counterpart Alexis Tsipras. "Our bid in the compromise is a defined and precise name, the name that is honorable and geographically precise — Republic of Northern Macedonia."

And the US State Department reacts:

The United States congratulates Prime Ministers Alexis Tsipras and Zoran Zaev and welcomes the historic agreement to resolve the name dispute. This resolution will benefit both countries and bolster regional security and prosperity. Prime Ministers Zaev and Tsipras demonstrated vision, courage, and persistence in their pursuit of a mutually acceptable solution. We also commend the commitment of UN mediator Matthew Nimetz for his steadfast efforts over more than two decades to end this dispute.We stand ready to support this agreement, as requested by the two countries.

 ^

Samaria?

Yes, "Samaria":

^

Judea and Samaria Before The Ethnic-Cleansing

In June 1967, the IDF entered and assumed the administration of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, districts of the former Palestine Mandate.

They were empty of Jews. Not one. And these areas were the heart of the Jewish national homeland. Jews had been living there.

During 1948-1967, no Jews lived in those areas because they were removed by 1948 or later, they were not permitted to reside in the area.  And they were removed in an organized ethnic-cleansing campaign between 1920-1948 led by the Mufti with notable pogroms in 1920, 1921, 1929 and then the 1936-39 period.

The area itself had been occupied by Jordan (Judea and Samaria) and by Egypt (Gaza) during the 1948 war launched by Arabs against the nascent Israel.  Most of those areas were scheduled to become part of an Arab start according to the recommendation of the United Nations in its November 29, 1947 Partition Plan.

While that plan was accepted by the Jewish community living in Mandate Palestine, the Arabs rejected it and began violent murderous hostilities the next day.

Those occupations by Jordan and Egypt were illegal and never recognized internationally.  While Gaza was under a regime of military occupation, Jordan annexed the area and attached it to its kingdom of the east of the Jordan River. It awarded the territory the name 'West Bank' in April 1950.

But to return to the Jews of those areas.  I have blogged previously about Gaza's Jews. And of Judea and Samaria and those are just two of many.

I have just read Dothan Goren's "U'Va L'Tzion Goel" which details land purchases by Jews  at the end of the Ottoman period of occupation of the Land of Israel specifically motivated by religious goals in and around Jerusalem.  Last week I referenced it to detail land purchases north of Jerusalem in close proximity to the Tomb of Samuel the Prophet.

Now I will list the most outstanding instances of land purchases up until 1914  or so in and around Jerusalem.

And let's recall: the Jewish people are the only people that were required to buy back their stolen and occupied homeland.

Area of Western Wall

Starting in the early 19th century, building and courtyards were purchased adjacent to the Kotel alleyway in the Mugrhabi Quarter by Moses Montiefiore 1828, Shmarya Luria 1833-35, the Sefardi Community Trust 1845. During his 1888 visit, Edmond Rothschild attempted to arrange for a transfer of ownership of the whole quarter as it was Waqf category. In 1908, the Odessa Geula Society tried as did David Tzvi Schneerson in 1911. In 1915 even Pasha Djemal suggested the houses near the alleyway be bought up by the Jews. Immediately after the city's conquest by England, attempts were renewed.

Outside the Old City

In 1878, the Garden of the Kings Tombs or Kalba Shua was purchased by Amalia Bertrand but in 1885, her executor Péreire, transferred ownership to the French Consulate.

The first pf several purchases adjacent to the the Cave of Shimon HaTzaddik took place in 1876.  Just west of there was founded the Nahalat Shimon neighborhood that by 1916 included 93 families and 253 persons.

Areas at the Sanhedria Tombs were purchased in 1914.

All throughout the 19th century, parts of the Mount of Olives cemetery were purchased from nearby villagers to enlarge the ancient plots to accommodate the growing Jewish population needs.

In 1840, the Meyuchas family bought land in Kfar Shiloach (Silwan) and after the arrival of Jews from Yemen in the 1880s, additional plots were obtained. It as known as the Yemenite Village and at its height, the community was home to 144 Yemenite Jewish families.

I've already blogged on the purchases near the Tomb of Samuel the Prophet north of Jerusalem.

Some pictures of that era around Jerusalem showing how sparse was the domiciles in the area:

Emek Refaim -

North of the Old City and in the upper left-hand side, the Batei Hungarim is marked 11-

Wadi Joz and environs -

In the south, the right to renovate Rachel's Tomb had to be bought.

Directly opposite the Tomb, two plots were bought by the Kalischer Family and by Nathan Strauss (of Macy's fame):

In 1875, Mordechai Yaffe bought a plot of land across from Rachel's Tomb as an envoy of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, who believed that reclaiming the land of Eretz Yisrael was the first step toward the redemption of the Jewish people...[but] the Ottomans declared it abandoned property, and the Muslim Waqf (religious trust) illegally occupied it in 1924...Nearby, the Jewish philanthropist Nathan Strauss purchased another piece of property [in 1912], which was transferred to the Jewish National Fund upon his death in 1931.

Even land in Anata was purchased through an intermediary in 1914. And earlier, Qalandia:

^

How Many Revenant Residents Are There?

According to B'tselem's current web site entry, the number of Jewish Israelis residing beyond the Green Line, a category they term "settlers", is

an estimated 588,000...This figure is derived from two sources: According to data provided by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), at the end of 2015, 382,916 people were living in the settlements of the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. According to data provided by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the population of the Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem numbered 205,220 people at the end of 2014.

However, as they note, the annual population increase of that population is 4.1%.

My calculation is that increase would be around 23,500 people. Two years have passed and so 588,000 + 47,000 (23,500 x 2) = 635,000. Correct? 

Peace Now's figures are 399, 300 in Judea and Samaria at end of 2016. And in "East Jerusalem" (what do they do with Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 in the north and south of the city?) live 208,410 Jews.  That totals to 607,710. We then add 23,500 and that equals 631,210. Correct?

The Yesha Council lists 421,400 Israeli residents in the area as of January 2017, but excluding post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhoods.  An average of B'tselem's figure and Peace Now's figure for Jerusalem would be 206,815 and, added to the above number, would total 628,215. We'll leave the extra population figure off.

An average of those three figures results in 631,475.

So, in another two months, we can expect the number of Jewish Israelis residing in regions of the historic Jewish homeland not as yet under full Israel sovereignty to total, in my estimation, at least 640,000.

Ken yirbu ( & tfoo-tfoo)

____________________

Now I have to figure what percentage the Jewish Israelis are of the total population.  Off my head, in Judea and Samaria, that would be 20% approximately.

^

What's in a Name - A Fictional Story

The Washington Post has finally begin to semantically get with it.

In this story on the Israel government's decision to authorize a construction go-ahead, we read:

"...Oded Revivi, the foreign envoy for the Yesha Council, which represents Jewish settlers in the West Bank, which most Israelis refer to as Judea and Samaria..."

As was pointed out to me, the significance of this is the phrase: "'which most Israelis refer to". 

Thankfully, it's not couched as being "the Biblical term".

Getting close earlier was this New York Times story from February 1, 2017:

"“We are in a new era, where life in Judea and Samaria goes back to its normal and proper course,” the defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said in a statement, using the biblical name for the West Bank...Shilo Adler, the head of the Yesha Council, which represents settlers in the area,"

In there is "Judea and Samaria", "Yesha" and "biblical name".  Close. Good. But could be better.

In 2009 we had read

Buying homes in the settlement of Kiryat Netafim in the northern West Bank (known in Israel as Samaria) or in Tekoa in the southern West Bank (known as Judea)...The head of the Yesha settlers council, Daniel Dayan, says the growth of West Bank Israeli population is due to rapid population increase...

Let's remember, "West Bank" is an artificial geo-political name, created in April 1950 when Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria and incorporated it in his kingdom - which he himself first entered in November 1920 - an act considered illegal.

Are Judea and Samaria legitimate terms?

In the Mandate annual reports to the League of Nations, as here, the geography of the country was described so:

...to the south are the mountains of Samaria and Judea, which in places reach heights little less than those of Galilee...

...The capital of Palestine is Jerusalem, situated in the midst of the hills of Judea, and the principal towns are Haifa, with its modern harbour, in the north at the entrance to the plain of Esdraelon; Jaffa, a second port which lies some 40 miles west- north-west of Jerusalem; Tel Aviv, which is contiguous to Jaffa; and Nablus, the ancient Sichem, in the hills of Samaria. Jerusalem has a majority of Jewish inhabitants; in Haifa the Arab and Jewish elements are approximately equal in numbers; Tel Aviv is an entirely Jewish township of 150,000 inhabitants. In Jaffa a large majority of the people are Arabs, and in Nablus, apart from a small community of Samaritans, all the people are Arabs. 

In its report for 1938, it was recorded that in June, 1938, terrorist activities continued and

there was also a marked increase in isolated murders of Jews, the majority being settlers in the Plain of Sharon and northern Galilee; in arson of Jewish crops and property; in attacks on Jewish settlements; and in shooting at police and military patrols. An Italian priest was killed by armed brigands in the Judaean foothills and a British soldier was killed and six others wounded by the explosion of a land mine on a country track in Samaria. 

The United Nations, in delineating the boundaries between the proposed partition of the Mandate territory into two states, also used the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" and not West Bank (and as pointed out to me, there really is but OneWest Bank and that has nothing to do with a "Palestine").

Jordan's "West Bank" appellation is a fiction and its annexation was an illegal act which, moreover, but one country, Great Britain, fully recognized and accepted.

Jesus did not live on the "West Bank".

It should be relegated to a side note in any reportage story.

^