Judea and Samaria

 https://x.com/danburmawy/status/1914711821581173169?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 At first glance, the settlements in the West Bank seem indefensible. To the uninformed observer, they look like proof of Israeli aggression, evidence of occupation, expansionism, and disregard for international law. But that judgment only holds if you isolate the settlements from their historical, political, and existential context. Long before the world called it the "West Bank," it was known as Judea and Samaria. This was the land of ancient Israel, where Jewish kings ruled, where prophets spoke, where Jewish identity was formed. But historical ownership, while emotionally and spiritually powerful, is not how modern nations are governed. If every group laid claim to every land they once ruled, the entire world would erupt into chaos. Which is precisely why Israel, despite its undeniable historical connection to the West Bank, was willing to forgo its ancestral claim for the sake of peace. When the United Nations proposed the 1947 partition plan, Israel said yes. Even though the land offered was far less than what Jews had historically claimed, the Jewish leadership accepted it, because they valued peace and statehood over maximalist dreams. The Arab world, by contrast, said no. They didn’t just reject the plan, they launched a war to destroy Israel before it had even been born. As a result, from 1948 to 1967, the West Bank was illegally annexed by Jordan. No Palestinian state was created. No international outrage emerged over "occupation." Why? Because the goal was never a Palestinian state. The goal was, and for many still is, no Jewish state. Until 1967, Israel had no presence in the West Bank. It had no soldiers, no settlements, and no territorial ambition toward it. The West Bank was not occupied by Israel. And yet, there was still no peace. In 1967, Israel was surrounded once again by Arab armies openly vowing to wipe it off the map. Israel launched a defensive war and, in six days, took control of the Sinai, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. That control was not part of a Zionist conspiracy. It was a wartime necessity. Israel suddenly found itself holding territory that had been used against it, and among populations that had been taught to hate it. Which brings us to the heart of the issue. Yes, some religious Jews believe Judea and Samaria must be reclaimed. But that’s not what drives Israeli policy. The real reason the West Bank remains under Israeli control is this: security. The West Bank overlooks Israel’s heartland. A hostile force stationed there would have rocket range over Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion Airport, and Jerusalem. The 9-mile-wide corridor that connects Israel’s coast to the rest of the country would become a death trap. And this is what makes the conflict so tragic: Israel has repeatedly shown that it is willing to risk even its own security for the hope of peace. In the 1990s, under the Oslo Accords, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin offered massive territorial concessions to Yasser Arafat. He was ready to remove settlements, uproot Jewish families, and hand over large parts of the West Bank. That decision nearly tore Israel apart internally, and cost Rabin his life. Still, Israel tried again. In 2000 at Camp David, and in 2008 under Ehud Olmert, Israel offered even more, almost the entire West Bank, land swaps, and a shared Jerusalem. The Palestinian leadership said no. Again. In every case, Israel showed it was willing to compromise, even at the risk of empowering hostile forces. And every time, it was met with rejection and violence. Suicide bombings. Intifadas. Rocket fire. So No. The Settlements Aren’t the Root of the Problem They’re the result of a broken peace process, a hostile region, and an unresolved security dilemma. If the Arab world had accepted partition in 1947, there would be no settlements today. If the Palestinians had said yes in 2000 or 2008, there would be a Palestinian state. If terror hadn’t followed every Israeli withdrawal, Israel might have withdrawn again. But peace was never the real goal for Israel’s enemies. And that’s what makes the settlements understandable, if not ideal. So before you condemn Israel, understand this: Israel had the history. It gave it up. Israel had the moral high ground. It compromised. Israel had no desire for occupation. It was forced into it. The settlements are not the disease. They are a symptom, of a region where one side wants peace, and the other side wants the other erased.