25 Comments
User's avatar
Diane Steiner's avatar

Thank you for such an informative piece. The Palestinian leaders have made it clear over and over again,t hey do not want peace, nor do they want to be anywhere near where Jews exist. For the world to think there could be a solution to this problem would be like having an agreement for blacks and the KKK to live peacefully side by side, in the same neighborhood. It's preposterous.

Expand full comment
Andre Gorelkin's avatar

All those who support the two state delusion seek the destruction of the state of Israel. It must be repeated that this failed concept is not a solution that Israel should discuss further.

If the Arabs wish to have peace, they must apologize for the lie of palestinianism and compensate Israel and the Jewish people for their centuries of violence and destruction they have brought the region. Otherwise there is nothing we need to discuss with them.

Expand full comment
Beatrice Nora Caflun's avatar

That's absolutely right.......these " Palestinians " obviously don't want a state, don't want peace, they only want ( God forbid ) the destruction of Israel......they have the incredible Chutzpah to claim our land, the homeland of the Jewish people.....

Expand full comment
Alfred Harder's avatar

Everything anyone ever hears about Palestinians in the media are lies!

Expand full comment
Suzy's avatar

A outstanding summary of the history and legality of the case for Judea and Samaria, not to mention the entire failed peace process. Thank you for providing this with such clarity and breadth!

Expand full comment
Dena Tauber's avatar

Thank you

Expand full comment
Jill Grunewald's avatar

The world should know and comprehend!

Expand full comment
Elize Swarts's avatar

Judea & Samaria should not house palestians

Expand full comment
GARY B KATZ's avatar

Well said! Oft overlooked is the racism of claiming that a Pal state can't exist with Jews living there. Imagine if Israel said its 2 million Muslims must leave! Capital punishment for selling land to a Jew is still enshrined in PA law. Mahmoud Abbas previously vowed no Jews would be allowed to live in an independent "Palestine." Finally, as we all know, Arab terror against Jews started long before settlements. 1929 Hebron is a glaring example. Their hatred is passed from Arab generation to generation, like Jews pass down recipes for fried matzoh! Since they're going to hate us anyway, Israel might as well act like the country that won the wars and annex whatever parts of Judea/Samaria it wants. Nothing to lose. Let Pals keep Area A, with the caveat that terror attacks won't be tolerated, and Ramallah, Jenin, ad nauseam can become Gaza Redux, quite easily.

Expand full comment
Miriamnae's avatar

That is an excellent report. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Dena Tauber's avatar

Thank you

Expand full comment
Chaim Friedman's avatar

Thank Ms. Tauber for an excellent essay.

Just one very minor historical typo:

When you said "for purposes of this essay, I am starting at 1917 when the League of Nations entrusted the territory of “Palestine” to Britain for the stated purpose of creating a homeland for the Jewish People."

I am sure you meant to write 1922. 1917, of course, was when the British issued the Balfour Declaration, which the 1920 San Remo Conference reaffirmed and that the League of Nations adopted in 1922.

Thanks again.

Expand full comment
Dena Tauber's avatar

Thank you for the correction

Expand full comment
Chaim Friedman's avatar

Of course. Thanks again for your cogent succinct piece supporting Israel and Jews with truth. Am Yisrael Chai.

Expand full comment
Rusty Freeman's avatar

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

Expand full comment
Robert's avatar

UK Lawyers For Israel, Barrister, Natasha Hausdorff, says the following (which leads to the conclusion that Israel formation inherited all of the land in Mandatory Palestine, including Judea and Samaria:

"There is a customary rule in international law called uti possidetis juris, which means when a new state forms, unless there is another resolution, then the new state inherits the preexisting administrative lines of the previous administration. This rule goes back to when South America was achieving independence from the Spanish, and has been used in modern cases like the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Except for when it comes to Israel. When the British Mandate ended, Israel was the only state to be formed in that area. There had been a political proposal at the UN to split into two states, but that had not been accepted. So Israel was the only state to form, and thus by customary law, Israel’s borders would be the administrative lines of the British Mandate – meaning, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza. So then, when Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, it was occupying Israeli territory, and when Israel liberated those areas in 1967, it cannot be considered an “occupation,” as it was legally already part of Israel. So this basic international law utterly destroys this basic belief that Israel is “occupying” land in those areas. So Israel was the only state to form, and thus by customary law, Israel’s borders would be the administrative lines of the British Mandate – meaning, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza. So then, when Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, it was occupying Israeli territory, and when Israel liberated those areas in 1967, it cannot be considered an “occupation,” as it was legally already part of Israel. So this basic international law utterly destroys this basic belief that Israel is “occupying” land in those areas.

I have spoken to people who have written books on uti possidetis juris, and they are convinced this rule doesn’t apply to Israel, without being able to give any reason. Just to give an example: uti possidetis juris is the reason that Crimea is considered part of Ukraine. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. If Ukraine pushes Russia out, no one would say Crimea is occupied Russian territory!

It’s inexplicable, but international law is thrown out when it applies to the Jewish state. This example undermines every argument that Israel is an “occupier” or a “colonizer.” This is the actual legal position, rather than simplistic soundbites and one-liners."

Expand full comment
Herman's avatar

Who gave the holy land to Moses and the Israelites

Expand full comment
Susan Sullivan's avatar

Wonderful informative piece. These so called Palestinians have no claim on this land. The history proves this.

Expand full comment
ryan's avatar

if there is an Ottoman era map with Palestine written in the old Turkish Arabic script someone show me....otherwise there was a bunch of administrative "sanjuks" and the Turks were loathe to use a name for the region that was commonly used by Christian Europe exclusively, I don't know what the Ottoman empire had on its books for sale of land to Jews. from what I read they told Jews you can settle anywhere BUT the HOly Land. They certainly had no desire to advance Jewish population growth or Jewish land ownership under Muslim hegemony. They did advance and enable Muslims from abroad to settle the land.

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar
Apr 6Edited

We have monitored Hamas in Alliance with the Re-Formed Nazi Party here in Europe, from 2014 here in London. Any ceding of land to them for a Sovereign State would be used to rearm by the Palestinian Arabs, and we have seen what happens when events go down that route, in Gaza. The result is Genocidal Massacre which is what happened on October 7th 2023. Military Law is quite clear that Occupation is legal if it prevents a Genocide. In fact The Middle East has been in continuous genocidal turmoil since Ancient times, between one armed group or another, and we have now arrived at The Future there and it looks much like the Past: Vicious Armed Islamist Militias, held at bay so they cannot threaten Europe and the West by strong Israel. So get used to it. Israel and The West have won by superior Military Force and brilliance. The Next Step is the disarming of Iran. You have done your job Israel. Well done. Thus we continue.

Expand full comment