By Robert Kaufman, Special to JTNews
I wish to propose a change in the editorial policy of the JTNews: no articles, letters or ads would be accepted for publication if they refer to the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied.” I believe this policy satisfies the needs of virtually all who read the JTNews and support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. We can and do debate among ourselves whether it is best for Israel to hold all the land west of the Jordan, or surrender part of our claim to create a state for the Palestinian Arabs. Either way, our legal and historical claim to that land is a fact, and both sides can agree on it without damage to their cause.
The political definition of “occupied” is “to take possession of by settlement or seizure.” It invokes the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, or the Nazi occupation of France. The occupying power has taken its position by force and has no legal or historical claim on the land it occupies.
Does Israel have no historical claim to these territories? These are the heart of the “Promised Land” of the Bible. It is here that our kings ruled, our prophets preached and our people lived as a sovereign nation for over 1,000 years. The Arabs invaded in the seventh century, 2,000 years after the creation of Israel.
Do we have no legal claim to the West Bank and Gaza? All the land west of the Jordan was granted to the Jewish people by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922. If the unanimous declaration of the world’s first international body has any value, there are no “occupied territories.”
Those who believe that the best course for Israel is to give up our claim to the West Bank and Gaza for a Palestinian state would be free to express that opinion in the JTNews as always. They can, and should, refer to these lands as “disputed.” Those who insist on still using the term “occupied” need to present a case to refute the arguments I am presenting.
By using the term “disputed,” we recognize that both the Arabs and the Jews have a claim on them. The term “occupied” recognizes only the Arab claim. The two terms summarize the present conflict and why it is so difficult to solve. Israel offers to compromise. The Arabs demand everything and offer nothing. Even as they sit at the negotiating table they teach their children that all of Israel will someday be theirs.
The Green Line that was Israel’s border until the June 1967 war was created at armistice talks held in January of 1949 on the Island of Rhodes. That document clearly spelled out that the line was temporary, and not to be understood as a national border. Under international law, Israel has no obligation to give up the West Bank and Gaza, especially when that land will become the territory of an enemy sworn to Israel’s destruction.
This leads us to the most critical point of my argument. If the Green Line has no legal standing, and you believe that Israel has no claim on lands outside of it, what claim can Israel have for lands within it? The same documents, ancient or modern, that give Israel rights to Tel Aviv and Haifa confer the same rights to Hebron and Gaza. By giving up our claim to the 1967 lands, we give up our right to any homeland west of the Jordan. The Arabs and their supporters are well aware of this point.
Some argue that by claiming the 1967 territories, Israel is making it impossible to have peace with the Arabs. The opposite view is correct. The program of the left is “land for peace.” By accepting the false claims of the Arabs, they are accepting that Israel has no rights outside the Green Line. You cannot sell or trade what you do not own. By stating our claim we actually enable the Left to carry out their program. There is no evidence that giving up our rights to the 1967 lands is the only way to peace, and recent experience would argue against it. Both sides in this
dispute are trying to achieve peace, and neither one should stake out a claim as the “peace camp.”
We hear a lot today about the suffering of the Arabs, and Israel takes the brunt of the criticism for it. In 1948 the man who created the Arab Legion, Sir John Baggott Glubb, no Zionist, assessed the Arab loss to Israel. He put the blame on those who had encouraged the Arabs to go to war. …“By building up false hopes, they made them intransigent.” The biggest beneficiaries of my proposal will be the Arab people. When they show the same respect for Jewish rights as we do for theirs, they will choose leaders who will bring sincere peace offers to the table.
Once we agree that Jews have rights to all this land, the specious argument that “settlements are the obstacle to peace” disappears. Even if we give up political control, Jews can live in Palestine just as Arabs live in Israel. We should not yield one square inch of our heritage until this right is recognized and protected.
We fight a constant battle with the local and national media who consistently distort the news against Israel. The use of the term “occupied territories” is one of those distortions.
The question for the board of the JTNews is this: is our Jewish community paper obligated to provide a forum for those who want Israel to disappear as a Jewish state? Both our Seattle papers have recently published guest editorials calling for exactly that, so this opinion is not being stifled in any way.
Our Torah and Jewish history teach us that for Jews to succeed as a people we must be unified behind goals that are true to our heritage and that we can all support. I am convinced that all Jews who believe
in Israel’s right to exist can accept this policy change, and call on the board to put it into effect.