T. Belman. This is a very important demand because to call them “occupied” is to suggest that they belong to the Palestinians. There is absolutely no basis fo this. But Friedman is wrong to suggest the use of “alleged occupation” because the most accurate phrase is “disputed territories”.
In that dispute, Israel relies on their legal right to the lands in toto as as granted in San Remo and confirmed in the Palestine Mandate. The Palestinians got their right to negotiate from Jordan. But Jordan had no right to these lands and thus neither do the Palestinians. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords gave them the right to negotiate final status issues. Nothing more. This right to negotiate falls far short from the right to the land.
US ambassador to Israel reportedly calls on State Department to stop calling Judea and Samaria ‘occupied.’
US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman recently asked the State Department to cease using the term ‘occupation’ to describe Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem, according a report by Kan, the Israel Broadcasting Corporation.
According to the report, the State Department objected to the request, but eventually agreed to discuss the matter.
Ambassador Friedman described Judea and Samaria as being under an “alleged occupation” in an interview with the Jerusalem Post in September. Later that month, he stated that he believes Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are part of Israel.
“I think the settlements are part of Israel,” Friedman said in an interview with the Hebrew language Walla website.
“I think that was always the expectation when Resolution 242 was adopted in 1967. It remains today the only substantive resolution that was agreed to by everybody,” he added.
“The idea [behind the resolution] was that Israel would be entitled to secure borders,” said Friedman. “The [then] existing borders, the 1967 borders, were viewed by everybody as not secure, so Israel would retain a meaningful portion of the ‘West Bank’, and it would return that which it didn’t need for peace and security.”
“So there was always supposed to be some notion of expansion into the ‘jWest Bankj’, but not necessarily expansion into the entire ‘West Bank’. And I think that’s exactly what, you know, Israel has done. I mean, they’re only occupying two percent of the ‘West Bank’,” he pointed out. Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria are controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
Friedman also said that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria have an “important nationalistic, historical, religious significance” and added, “I think the settlers view themselves as Israelis and Israel views the settlers as Israelis.”
@ Russell:
Oh yes, I forgot, he also should not mention that Israel has the intention NOT to take the whole area, but only what they believed was sufficient for defence. This attitude give the barbarians an unfounded belief that they are entitled to a large part of YESHA, giving them a large base,in which they can operate to capture the rest of the country.
I posted on this yesterday, It hasn’t appeared.
Friedman should also, since he’s a fluent Hebrew speaker, be able to say Yehuda VeShomron. And certainly he should NEVER use the term “Borders” when referring to the 1967 CEASE FIRE lines, which both sides agreed that they were not a border and would have no influence on the real border, when that was agreed on.
He should know better.
The term “West Bank” should also be dropped as this is a term used to obfuscate the true identity of the area. Judea and Samaria.