Help JNS get the facts out
OpinionIsrael-Palestinian Conflict

Why adopt the Arab narrative?

Palestinian leaders demand that their refugees move to and live in the Jewish state, not to the envisioned Arab one.

Abraham Sion
Abraham Sion

Libelous and defamatory words have constantly been used in the last century to undermine Jewish legitimacy. Since Nazi Germany, no other people have mastered this craft more efficiently than the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters, particularly after the peace treaty between Israel and the PLO (the Oslo Accords). Since the Oslo Accords of Sept. 13, 1993, the Arabs of Palestine have been waging a psychological warfare aimed at the destruction of Israel’s image in the world.

To facilitate their campaign, Palestinian leaders and their supporters created a false narrative on various issues, knowing that it would have a deep psychological effect on public opinion, especially when repeated incessantly year after year. Here, I am referring to phrases that we see every day in the news, among politicians and community leaders, even within the Jewish community; phrases such as “The two-state solution,” “West Bank” and “Occupied Territories,” which have become rooted in today’s rhetoric around the world. The only nation in the Arab-Israeli conflict that seems to have neglected to recognize this fabrication is the Jewish nation, for its leaders, politicians and newscasters have fully adopted the Arab narrative.

To begin with, there is no such a thing as a two-state solution when referring to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has existed as a viable state since 1948. It no longer needs to be established or to be recognized. Therefore, Israel is not a party to any “solution” in this false equation. What the two-state solution really means is the formation of another Arab state in the territory promised to the Jewish people as their national Homeland. This is in addition to the eastern part of Palestine, namely Transjordan, which was offered by the British to Abdullah, the Emir of Hedjaz, to appease the Arabs.

As I point out in my book, To Whom Was the Promised Land Promised?, the Middle East was divided by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference in April 1920 between the Arab nation and the Jewish nation. The Arabs were granted independence in the entire Middle East except for Palestine, while Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, was designated to constitute the national home for the Jewish people. In 1921, Great Britain carved out Transjordan from the territory of Palestine, and on Nov. 29, 1947, the Arabs of Palestine were offered a substantial part of what was left of the Jewish National Home by the General Assembly (in its Resolution 181 II). Nevertheless, the Arabs rejected the offer and invaded the newly born Jewish state for the purpose of obliterating it. They failed. Now, the Palestinian Arabs wish to take the international community back almost 75 years to Nov. 29, 1947, and make it sound as if we are now dealing with the establishment of two states: one Arab and one Jewish.

However, Israel exists as a viable state and is more advanced than many others in almost every aspect of life: medicine, military intelligence, technology, startups, agriculture, desalinization, etc. The truth is that the Arabs and their supporters wish to establish a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and it is far easier to convince the world that this is done on an even-handed basis.

Another inherent conflict regarding the two-state solution is that Palestine, as envisioned by their leadership, is completely Arab, devoid of any Jews living as equal citizens in their midst; whereas Israel has Arab citizens forming more than 20 percent of the total population that regards themselves as Palestinian, as do their representatives in the Knesset, who mostly work hard to make Israel vanish as a Jewish state. We never hear suggestions that those who regard themselves as Palestinians move to the Arab state. On the contrary: Palestinian Arab leaders demand that their refugees move to and live in the Jewish state, not to the envisioned Arab one.

Moreover, this unrealistic plan is no solution to the conflict since the Palestinian Arabs refused to see an end to the conflict by the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is no secret that they would continue to carry out their terrorist activities from within Palestinian territory to achieve the goal of eradicating the Jewish state completely. It is crucial to recall that time after time, the Palestinian Arabs have rejected any attempt to offer them a state subject to the ending of all hostilities and terrorist activities against Israel.

The two-state solution, therefore, is false. It is a misnomer. It serves as baseless Arab propaganda. It is, therefore, not clear why the supporters of truth—let alone the Israeli government and world Jewry—would adopt the Arab narrative of a two-state solution. Why not insist that the entire raison d’être of the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters is to create another Arab state in what was actually, in fact, designated under international law to become the National Home for the Jewish people?

The same argument applies to the West Bank. This again is a misnomer aimed at enhancing Arab propaganda, and at disconnecting the area from Jewish roots and history. The West Bank is the territory known in biblical times and thereafter as Judea and Samaria. Even during the British Mandate, this area was referred to as Judea and Samaria. The term West Bank was given to this area by the Kingdom of Transjordan after occupying it in 1948 ostensibly to disconnect the term from its Jewish roots. It later annexed it in flagrant violation of international law and Article 2 (4) of the U.N. Charter.

Interestingly, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was not recognized by any other country except Britain and Pakistan. It wasn’t even recognized by the Arab League or by any other Arab country. However, renaming the area as the West Bank had a strong psychological effect. It made its annexation to Transjordan possible and enabled the recognition of the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” by the International Court of Justice and in U.N. resolutions. It would have been much more difficult for the Kingdom of Transjordan to annex a territory known as Judea and Samaria or for the international community to regard this area as “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

It is therefore quite obvious why the Arabs and their supporters prefer to relate to Judea and Samaria as the West Bank. However, it’s not clear why anyone who pursues truth and justice—let alone Jewish leaders around the globe, Israeli politicians, statesmen and journalists—wishes to adopt the misnomer rather than the correct name.

Abraham Sion is a professor emeritus at Ariel University and author of “To Whom Was the Promised Land Promised?” (Mazo Publishers of Jerusalem), which is available on Amazon.

The opinions and facts presented in this article are those of the author, and neither JNS nor its partners assume any responsibility for them.

Israel is at war - Support JNS

JNS is combating the barrage of misinformation with factual reporting. We depend on your support.

Support JNS
Never miss a thing
Get the best stories faster with JNS breaking news updates