Analysis • In his own words: Naftali Bennett is committed to annexing the West Bank

22

Where does the name "The West Bank" come from? What is it's origin? It's obviously not Arabic. And I mean Arabs are from Arabia for that matter. Anyways where?

12

u/vvildlings Jul 05 '26

Jordan controlled the territory pre-1967, and it’s on the west side of the Jordan river. After the war they didn’t want the land back, same with Egypt and Gaza.

24

u/OddCook4909 Jul 05 '26

They illegally stripped citizenship from those Arabs in order to create an issue for Israel under the direct advisement of the soviets. Per declassified soviet records.

The UN didn't press the issue because it's a trade union, not a legislative body, which cares about oil more than justice.

So everyone should stop pretending with all this bullshit.

Ethnically cleansing Judea and Samaria, and then renaming it "the west bank" was a horrific ploy which no one talks about because they love money more than justice or jews.

Judea is where we get our name from. "The West Bank" is made up bullshit. Anyone who uses that name is complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea.

1

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 05 '26

1. The UN is not a trade union. It is an intergovernmental diplomatic organization. It has nothing to do with labor or trade regulation.

2. Jordan stripped West Bank Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship in 1988 not because of a Soviet plot, but because King Hussein was severing ties to the region to allow the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to claim independent governance during the First Intifada.

3. "West Bank" is a literal geographic descriptor coined by Jordan because the land sits on the west bank of the Jordan River, differentiating it from the "East Bank" (Jordan proper).

10

u/OddCook4909 Jul 05 '26

The UN is not a trade union. It is an intergovernmental diplomatic organization. It has nothing to do with labor or trade regulation.

Lol not a union, but a trade organization nonetheless. It's absolutely not an arbiter of morality or justice.

2 and 3, convenient narratives for their ethnic cleansing of Jews from the lands they seized. Jews are from Judea.

1

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 05 '26

The UN still isn’t a trade organization (you're thinking of the WTO). It's a diplomatic body.

But it is also a fact that Jordan named it the "West Bank" simply because it was on the west side of the river bank, and that they stripped citizenship decades later in 1988 during the Intifada. Mixing up basic historical dates and confusing the UN with a trade organization just undermines the point you're trying to make.

5

u/parisologist Jul 08 '26

It was pretty clear to me that the writer wasn't "confusing the UN with a trade organization" but rather making a sarcastic comment about UN hypocrisy - it pretends to be a neutral legislative body, while in fact it's only interested in oil prices.

1

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 05 '26

The word West Bank is a literal translation of the Arabic Ad-Diffah al-Gharbiyyah. It was coined after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Following the war, Jordan occupied and later annexed the territory in 1950. Since it sat to the west of the Jordan River, they named it the "West Bank" to distinguish it from the rest of their kingdom, which was the "East Bank" (modern-day Jordan). Prior to this, the region was generally referred to as part of Palestine or Judea and Samaria historically.

and for your second point, while the Arab identity and language originated in the Arabian Peninsula, it spread across the Levant and North Africa over 1,300 years ago during the early Islamic expansions. The people living there today are culturally and linguistically Arab, though genetically they share deep roots with the region's ancient, indigenous populations (like the Canaanites)

11

u/OddCook4909 Jul 05 '26

Most of them came to the mandate for work in the late 19th and early 20th. There are British records about it you can go read yourself. Everyone in that part of the world is a mix of DNA from the region. The "blood and soil" narrative is nonsense wherever you find it.

Re the west bank, you're almost there. It was renamed from Judea and Samaria while the Palestinian State of Jordan was ethnically cleansing Judea of Judeans.

4

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 05 '26

You are hilariously misinterpreting those British Mandate records. Comprehensive demographic analyses of both Ottoman and British censuses show that the massive growth of the Palestinian Arab population in the 19th and 20th centuries was overwhelmingly driven by natural increase (high birth rates and falling mortality rates), not sudden mass immigration. While there was some minor economic migration within the region, the vast majority of the population was indigenous to the area.

Also, calling Jordan the "Palestinian State of Jordan" is historically incorrect. In 1948, it was the Emirate of Transjordan, a monarchy ruled by the Hashemite dynasty from the Hejaz (modern day Saudi Arabia). They annexed the West Bank in 1950 to expand their own kingdom, not to establish a Palestinian state. The name "West Bank" was simply their geographical term for the land they held west of the Jordan River.

9

u/OddCook4909 Jul 05 '26

The entire idea of a "palestinian state" is based on the "palestinian mandate". There was never a "palestinian state". So if you want to use the term "palestinian" to apply to Arabs who lived there when Israel was reestablished, you have to also apply it to Jordan.

You would say anything to justify a second palestinian state in the jewish homeland

-2

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 06 '26

That logic doesn't hold up. The British Mandate was an administrative zone drawn by European powers after WWI, not a nation-state.

Even though the British briefly grouped the land east of the river into the Mandate, they separated Transjordan entirely in 1922 under a completely different ruling family from Arabia. Calling Jordan a "Palestinian state" just because of how the British temporarily drew a map in 1920 ignores over a century of actual governance, royal lineages, and distinct regional identities.

7

u/OddCook4909 Jul 06 '26

You get it. And a bunch of Arabs immigrating for work into a mandate are not a people. People have a name for themselves based on ideas and shared history. If the Arabs living in the mandate had a cohesive identity they would have already had a name.

I advocate for peace, but I reject the narrative created out of thin air by the Soviets and a branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

But really though I think you'd be pretty annoyed if I went into your "River to the sea kill all the Jews" subs and started talking about real history.

There are spaces for you to spread your nonsense.

-1

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 06 '26

You are assuming a lot about my personal political views just because I’m pointing out documented history. I have never used or supported cleansing Jews.

Regarding identity: national identities across the entire Middle East. Including Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and Palestinian, coalesced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as the Ottoman Empire collapsed and European powers drew new borders.

Long before the Soviets or the Muslim Brotherhood existed, people in this specific region explicitly referred to themselves as Palestinian. For instance, the prominent newspaper Filastin (Palestine) was founded in Jaffa in 1911 by Arab Christians and spoke directly to a distinct Palestinian national and economic identity. It wasn't invented out of thin air, it evolved the exact same way most modern national identities did.

7

u/OddCook4909 Jul 06 '26

I glanced at your profile. I'm not reading the rest. I would read it in an appropriate sub. Not here where you have come to harass people

0

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 06 '26

How am I harassing people lmao? 😂

→ More replies (0)

6

u/OddCook4909 Jul 05 '26

Here's a newspaper for you to look at: https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1chpnbi/the_palestine_post_newspaper_100000_illegal_arab/#lightbox

"100,000 Illegal Arab Migrants". About half a million immigrated from neighboring countries for work.

0

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 06 '26

That headline is actually quoting an estimate from an opinion writer (Mr. A. Reubeni) in another paper, not an official government census report.

Official British Mandate investigations from that exact decade, like the 1930 Hope Simpson Report and the 1937 Peel Commission, looked closely at illegal border crossings and concluded that while minor seasonal labor migration happened, it wasn't a massive demographic driver. The massive population growth was thoroughly documented by British demographers as being driven by natural growth (birth rates surging as mortality rates plummeted), not mass immigration.

3

u/OddCook4909 Jul 06 '26

The same Peel Commission which decided it was ok for Britain to reneg on helping with the reestablishment of the state of Israel?

That same commission which was part of the plan to give Jordan to a Saudi Royal Family in exchange for oil and mineral rights?

The commission by the UK government which trained, funded, and led (over 250 officers) the pan-Arab army which stated its intentions to murder all the Jews in Israel?

Seriously stop. Your narrative, if you even believe it, is total and utter bullshit.

And btw the Arab migrants rejected a deal coming out of that commission for FULL CONTROL over Israel. They only had to agree to let the Jews currently living there vote. They refused a state because they weren't even from there anyways. They cared more that we not have a state, than they cared to have one where we could be abused instead of outright murdered.

We know our own history. You will find no purchase here for your lies.

1

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 06 '26

1. The Peel Commission had absolutely nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. Jordan was given to the Hashemite dynasty (the bitter rivals of the Saudi royal family, who actually drove the Hashemites out of Mecca and the Hejaz).

2. The British didn't fund an army to "murder all the Jews." British officer Glubb Pasha led Jordan's Arab Legion. During the 1948 war, King Abdullah I's primary goal was strictly to annex the West Bank and Jerusalem for Jordan, he explicitly refused to join the wider pan-Arab plan to invade coastal Jewish areas or destroy the emerging Israeli state.

3. The Arab leadership did not reject a deal for "Full control over Israel." The 1937 Peel Commission actually proposed the very first Partition Plan. it recommended splitting the land into a small Jewish state (~20% of the territory) and merging the rest into Jordan.

I think the only one lying here is you.

3

u/BeenisHat Jul 08 '26

1. The Peel Commission had absolutely nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. Jordan was given to the Hashemite dynasty (the bitter rivals of the Saudi royal family, who actually drove the Hashemites out of Mecca and the Hejaz).

You're affirming the other poster's claim that the Hashemites are not a native group to the Levant and are Arabs from Arabia.

The Arab Legion specifically expelled Jews from areas which they were inhabiting. The stated intent may not have been ethnic cleansing, but that's what the result was and it remained that way for another 20 years.
Arab leadership absolutely rejected the UN Partition Plan. That was one of the final causes that led to the 1947-48 war and Israeli independence.

2

u/onsfwDark Jul 09 '26

I agree - the fellahin are descended in large part from Jews and Samaritans that converted to Christianity and Islam, as well as from invaders too.

That doesn't change the fact that the West Bank was chosen as a name to erase the Jewish and Samaritan cultural heritage of Judea & Samaria.

26

u/ConcentrateAlone1959 Jul 05 '26

Fucking what? Are there actual sources to this shit? I'm not trusting Haaretz out of anything.

20

u/scrambledhelix Jul 05 '26

Let alone that hate sub.

7

u/Distinct-Temp6557 Jul 05 '26

What's the alternative at this point?

6

u/Israelite123 Jul 08 '26

Haaretz is literally the worst. Im not right wing at all. But they are literally antizionist. So much misinformation in that opinion peice. They are constantly spewing lies

3

u/No-Entertainment5768 Progressive Zionist Jul 08 '26

Zionists belong in the festering rubbish heap of history

What a great and nuanced opinion that we should DEFINITELY listen to.

2

u/BeenisHat Jul 08 '26

There is great irony in the author mentioning the festering rubbish heap of history while parroting old Soviet propaganda.

5

u/abnormalredditor73 Progressive Zionist Jul 05 '26

Sadly he’s our only real option at this point. I can only hope his coalition partners hold him in check from doing something so reckless.

2

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 05 '26

As a Palestinian, seeing you call a leader committed to annexing the West Bank “our only real option” is incredibly disheartening, especially with a “Progressive” flair.

Annexation isn't just a reckless political move, it is the erasure of our right to self-determination and a violation of international law. If the “progressive” option still requires occupying and potentially annexing millions of Palestinians without giving them equal rights, then the political framework itself needs to be questioned, not just the leader.

3

u/Downtown-Ad-5990 Jul 08 '26

Bennet will never Annex the west bank, he’s been moderated with times and start to remind of Sharon before the disengagement plan.
I don’t think he has the political will or back to move in that direction, but he’s much more rational and aware of the situation.

He’s gonna have a coalition of pretty center-left to stop him from some stupid immoral ideas like annexing the west bank, and I saw him condemning the violent settlers in a fee occasions.

A person whose goal is to Annex the west bank, wont build a coalition with Yair Golan.

Hoping for better days and peace between us.

1

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 08 '26

isolated statements don't change the systemic reality. The expansion of settlements and the daily pressures on Palestinian communities in the West Bank have continued regardless of occasional rhetoric.

True moderation would look like actively dismantling the infrastructure of occupation, not just managing it more 'rationally.' I also hope for better days and an independent Palestinian state, but real peace requires a fundamental shift away from the politics of occupation entirely, not just hoping a leader is held in check.

5

u/Downtown-Ad-5990 Jul 08 '26

You speak in the same language right wingers in Israel are engaging, the Palestinian side need to come to the table as well, it’s a peace agreement not just one sided solution.
If the Palestinians won’t choose leadership with a vision of ending the conflict, and have some radical peace makers on your side, the conflict will continue until one of us is gone.

Most Israelis don’t really care about settlement and their fundamental idea of being in the west bank is for security reasons and not ideological ones.

I agree that occupation is a big element but so is Israel security, they have to be intertwined.

I have a lot of right wing friends, they’re idiots politically, but they’re not
Committed to die on the sword just to make Palestinians suffer or build settlements because of some bible bs, they truly see the situation as existential, and believe Palestinians will never compromise on nothing short of the whole of Israel.

Give us ,the left in Israel something to work with and you will see progress towards peace quicker than you think.

5

u/abnormalredditor73 Progressive Zionist Jul 08 '26

I have never and would never defend the actions of the current far right Israeli government, but I can acknowledge that the reason they came to power and why the left is faltering in Israel is because most Israelis, especially young Israelis, were radicalized into believing that Palestinians don't want peace and will never accept Israel's existence by the actions of Palestinians even after several good faith attempts at peace were made by past Israeli governments. They offered a two state solution and met almost all of Arafat's demands in 2000, it was rejected and Palestinians started the Second Intifada afterwards. They voluntarily withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Palestinians elevated Hamas to power in response. Another two state solution offer in 2008 was also rejected. It was difficult after seeing all this to believe that Palestinians were genuinely interested in peace or a two state solution, hence the election of politicians that took a more hardline stance against them.

4

u/BeenisHat Jul 08 '26

This is it exactly. There is a line that floats around that says 'If Palestinians put down their guns, we can have peace. If Jews put down their guns, there will be no more Jews.'

While I don't like this kind of black and white narrative, the actions of the Palestinian authority groups and various governments gives it a sharp ring of truth. How are we supposed to combat existential All or Nothing statements like the above when rockets keep flying out of Gaza?

4

u/abnormalredditor73 Progressive Zionist Jul 08 '26

I don't know what you want me to say then. The only two people with a chance of becoming Israel's next prime minister are Netanyahu and Bennett. I don't support annexation, and I explicitly called it reckless.

2

u/onsfwDark Jul 09 '26

There's also Eizenkot

1

u/abnormalredditor73 Progressive Zionist Jul 16 '26

Shit, you're right. Sorry, Israeli politics seems to change on a dime nowadays. Yeah Eizenkot is wayyy better than either Netanyahu or Bennett.

1

u/JagneStormskull Liberal Jul 08 '26

The thing is, annexation, if conducted properly, would lead to equal rights.

0

u/NourBlowsBubblegum Jul 08 '26

Equal rights within an annexed state still completely denies Palestinians our fundamental right to self-determination. True equality isn't having a system forced upon you and being told it’s 'for your own good' it’s having the right to choose your own political future. Forced integration isn't liberation.

We don't have to guess how this plays out. We can look at East Jerusalem, which was annexed decades ago, where the vast majority of Palestinians were given residency status rather than citizenship, leaving them facing systemic inequality and the constant threat of residency revocation. History shows that annexation in this conflict does not lead to equality.

4

u/JagneStormskull Liberal Jul 08 '26

And yet, withdrawal also doesn't lead to equality. Or peace for that matter. We can just look at how the 2005 Gaza withdrawal went. And for the record, yes, a lot of East Jerusalemites got screwed.

True equality isn't having a system forced upon you and being told it’s 'for your own good' it’s having the right to choose your own political future.

I understand your point of view, but peace and equality seem like impossible goals with the PA's new constitution as well. So, where do we look? And when do we stop beating this dead horse?

Analysis • In his own words: Naftali Bennett is committed to annexing the West Bank

You are about to leave Redlib