The truth about the West Bank, those 1967 borders and more

Ethel C. Fenig
Confused about terms relating to Israel such as West Bank, (where and what is the East Bank?) occupied territories (who occupies what?) and the 1967 borders (what about the 1966 borders?)? Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, explains it all to you on a convenient video.

In a Jerusalem Post summary about the video, Ayalon "mentions how there was never an Arab state in the West Bank known as "Palestine." "Actually, was there ever [a state of Palestine]?" he then asks. Most people are shocked to discover that the answer is a resounding "No!" Palestine is a 40 year old construct; Palestinians are Arabs who share a culture, a religion, a language with other Arabs in say, Jordan and Egypt.

 It talks about how Jordan had "no legal justification" for holding the West Bank following the War of Independence, and how Israel's giving up its claim to the East Bank of the Jordan River, promised under the Balfour Declaration, shows that "I guess you can't say the Jewish people haven't accepted some painful compromises already."

Ayalon goes on to say there was never an international border on the Green Line and that a new legal definition is needed for the West Bank, arguing it should be considered a disputed area, like Western Sahara, Tunbs Island (controlled by Iran but claimed by the United Emirates) and Kashmir, among others.

"Israel's presence in the West Bank is the result of a war of self-defense and should not be seen as occupied territory; because there was no sovereign body there before, it should be called disputed," Ayalon says.


So much for those not so sacred 1967 borders; as for occupied territory, well yes, the Jordanians and the so called Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory.

For accuracy's sake, Ayalon politely requests

"Please, let's stop using the terms 'occupied territories' and ''67 borders,' they're simply not politically correct," Ayalon says.

Is that asking too much from the lefties, the jihadists and/or the journalists and commentators too lazy to do their research? Probably.


Confused about terms relating to Israel such as West Bank, (where and what is the East Bank?) occupied territories (who occupies what?) and the 1967 borders (what about the 1966 borders?)? Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, explains it all to you on a convenient video.

In a Jerusalem Post summary about the video, Ayalon "mentions how there was never an Arab state in the West Bank known as "Palestine." "Actually, was there ever [a state of Palestine]?" he then asks. Most people are shocked to discover that the answer is a resounding "No!" Palestine is a 40 year old construct; Palestinians are Arabs who share a culture, a religion, a language with other Arabs in say, Jordan and Egypt.

 It talks about how Jordan had "no legal justification" for holding the West Bank following the War of Independence, and how Israel's giving up its claim to the East Bank of the Jordan River, promised under the Balfour Declaration, shows that "I guess you can't say the Jewish people haven't accepted some painful compromises already."

Ayalon goes on to say there was never an international border on the Green Line and that a new legal definition is needed for the West Bank, arguing it should be considered a disputed area, like Western Sahara, Tunbs Island (controlled by Iran but claimed by the United Emirates) and Kashmir, among others.

"Israel's presence in the West Bank is the result of a war of self-defense and should not be seen as occupied territory; because there was no sovereign body there before, it should be called disputed," Ayalon says.


So much for those not so sacred 1967 borders; as for occupied territory, well yes, the Jordanians and the so called Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory.

For accuracy's sake, Ayalon politely requests

"Please, let's stop using the terms 'occupied territories' and ''67 borders,' they're simply not politically correct," Ayalon says.

Is that asking too much from the lefties, the jihadists and/or the journalists and commentators too lazy to do their research? Probably.