“A land without a people for a people without a land” is one of the most oft-cited phrases in the literature of Zionism—and perhaps also the most problematic. Anti-Zionists cite the phrase as a perfect encapsulation of the fundamental injustice of Zionism: that early Zionists believed Palestine was uninhabited,[1] that they denied—and continue to reject—the existence of a distinct Palestinian culture,[2] and even as evidence that Zionists always planned on an ethnic cleansing of the Arab population.[3] Such assertions are without basis in fact: They both deny awareness on the part of early Zionists of the presence of Arabs in Palestine and exaggerate the coalescence of a Palestinian national identity, which in reality only developed in reaction to Zionist immigration.[4] Nor is it true, as many anti-Zionists still assert, that early Zionists widely employed the phrase.

Origins of the Phrase

Many commentators, such as the late Arab literary theorist Edward Said, erroneously attribute the first use of the phrase to Israel Zangwill, a British author, playwright, and poet.[5] In fact, the phrase was coined and propagated by nineteenth-century Christian writers.

In 1831, Muhammad Ali Pasha, the ruler of Egypt, wrested control of Greater Syria from direct Ottoman control, a political change which led the British Foreign Ministry to send a consul to Jerusalem. This development catalyzed the popular imagination.

The earliest published use of the phrase appears to have been by Church of Scotland clergyman Alexander Keith in his 1843 book The Land of Israel According to the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.[6] Keith was an influential evangelical thinker whose most popular work, Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion Derived from the Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy,[7] remains in print almost two centuries after it was first published. As an advocate of the idea that Christians should work to encourage the biblical prophecy of a Jewish return to the land of Israel, he wrote that the Jews are “a people without a country; even as their own land, as subsequently to be shown, is in a great measure a country without a people.”[8] Keith was aware that the Holy Land was populated because he had traveled to Palestine in 1839 on behalf of the Church of Scotland and returned five years later with his son, George Skene Keith, believed to be the first photographer to visit to the Holy Land.

Who said Palestine never existed? There was a Palestine pavilian at the World’s Fair, a Palestine Symphony Orchestra, and The Palestine Post newspaper. There was, however, never a country called Palestine, and the people today claiming to be part of an ancient Palestinian lineage are mostly liars. Palestine was sparsely populated by Jews, Muslims, and Christians until Zionists began buying land from absentee landowners and improving conditions enough so that the land could support a larger population. Arabs from surrounding nations began moving into the land, and now their descendents are making the absurd claim of being an ancient people. Your rant about throwing, destroying, killing, and imprisoning, is anti-Israel idiocy.

Why did Arabs make this absurd claim? Well, according to Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader back in the 1970s, “Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are ONE people. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity.

A separate Palestinian entity needs to fight for the national interest in the then remaining occupied territories. The Jordanian government cannot speak for Palestinians in Israel, Lebanon or Syria. Jordan is a state with specific borders. It cannot lay claim on - for instance - Haifa or Jaffa, while I AM entitled to Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem en Beersheba. Jordan can only speak for Jordanians and the Palestinians in Jordan. The Palestinian state would be entitled to represent all Palestinians in the Arab world en elsewhere. Once we have accomplished all of our rights in all of Palestine, we shouldn’t postpone the unification of Jordan and Palestine for one second.”

Now you know why millions of people decided to call themselves Palestinians. Any other questions?

Oh, and check out this video of a Hamas interior minister discussing the -ahem - cough - cough - Palestinian people.

freeandfair:

garbanzotoons:

freeandfair:

garbanzotoons:

freeandfair:

chaobunny:

freeandfair:

garbanzotoons:

0

BDS leaders and activists tend to make a lot of noise around what they consider “successful” campaigns, i.e. affirmation of specific calls for boycott. One of their main targets are Israeli products, and more specifically items produced in the Palestinian/ occupied territories.

A recent example is the plan to change the labeling of these products in South Africa, A prospect that sent the BDSers to celebrate with joy – Online and offline.

What they probably don’t take into account is the fact that these factories they call to boycott and shut down, pay salaries to thousands (around 15,000) of Palestinian workers, receive social benefits and the same paychecks as the Israeli workers.

I simply cannot understand this call for boycott. Are thousands of families and individuals becoming unemployed a good thing? Will the fact that they will lose their source of income a reason to celebrate? Is the unholy principle of boycott more important than actual people, with actual lives (Not internet ”personas”) being fired?

Take for example the Lipski Plastic Industries factory, located in the Barkan Industrial Zone. There are 80 workers in this factory, 40 out of which are Palestinian. But apparently these concerned workers are simply not part of the BDSers’ plan. No-one cares about them losing their jobs.

The away I see it, these factories are small colonies of co-existence, places where Jews and Arabs work together. I don’t see the sense in boycotting (And hoping to shut down) these places.

Has anyone heard of a campaign calling to buy Palestinian produce’ rather than boycotting? Of course not, because BDSers believe that hate and destruction are more effective than cooperation and debate

The more I look into this issue’ the more I feel that the BDS activists have, in fact, no real desire of peace and that will do anything in their power to avoid it – As long as their self-righteous facade is kept in tact.

All the while, actual Palestinian factories are being bombed and blocked, so normal Palestinians can’t make a living. The point of this boycott is to show the injustice forced upon by Israel.

False. The only places being bombed are the places that Hamas is using as headquarters to fire rockets into Israel. Hamas chooses to fire rockets out of civilian areas, which include neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and hospitals. Hamas does not care about casualties—in fact, they fire rockets from these places intentionally to create casualties and thus bring more condemnation against Israel. Hamas is to blame for the plight of its people. Boycotting is not solving anything, it is just creating more problems. The real solution would be to stop Hamas from embezzling all the money sent to the Palestinians and for them to use it to help their people instead of buy weapons.

Actually, there have been several occasions where Isreal has bombed none Hamas targets, one example was this Cheese and Yogurt factory, which had been bombed 4 times since the 2008-09 war, and has nothing to do with the conflict.

Furthermore, Hamas has largely upheld the peace treaty with Israel. Rockets are being fired by other militant groups. (You may have to scroll down in order to find the info)

As I have maintained in past blogs, the only way to finally ensure peace, is for Israel to give back the land it took during the 6 Day War through negotiations. That is the only way to solve the conflict.

Hamas can’t control the other terrorist groups, or they don’t want to? They avert their gaze so they can deny responsibility. “Who us? No way! It’s those other terrorists! Really!” No, it’s Hamas, either implicitly or in complicity.

Israel was under constant attack before the Six Day War, so how could anybody think that returning the land would solve a problem that began long before 1967? Especially when Israel evacuated Gaza and was rewarded with rocket attacks. And then there’s the Hamas charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, borders be damned. Meanwhile, the Palestinians under the PA have refused statehood. They too, refuse to live in peace with a Jewish state.

The way to solve the conflict is to halt all aid to the Palestinians. Force them to take responsibility for their own sorry, self-inflicted state.

Is that the same lack of control Israel has for Jewish Extremists as well? The same extremists attack innocent Palestinians and are considered ‘terrorists’ by the United States? Better look at yourselves before you start blaming others for the lack of peace. 

This conflict has changed since the founding of the Israel. For all the talk of destroying it, Palestinians do accept the existence of the Jewish state. This was what lead to the Oslo peace accord. What they don’t accept is the illegal occupation of their land. Even if Israel has removed its ground forces, its domination of Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, and restrictions on how many people can get out, means that the United Nations and the international community still deems it as occupied. This was the reason why Hamas was democratically elected in 2006.

Furthermore, if you’re going to back your claims that Palestinians don’t want a state, you might want to choose a source that isn’t biased, and actually gives facts. Ehud Olmert never gave offer for land, like most Israeli PM that came before him. The only person who would was Yitzhak, and he was killed for it.  Recognition of a Palestinian state is actually good for peace, but Israel has gone so far to stop it, that they’ve actually blackmailed the PA, by threatening to cut off it tax revenues.

As for Camp David, the negotiations failed because refused to give back all the land it took. Most of the Israeli concessions was land that was legally Palestinian land, and accepting the deal would have meant forfeiting what was rightly theirs under international law. It was the standing of the USA that negotiations start with the precondition that the pre-1967 boarders would be the basis of the talks but Israel refused to agree to this. You can read about it here.

As for your solution, if it can be called that, basically shows how completely ignorant Zionists are. Your so wrapped in your paranoia, that you won’t admit the your own faults that fueling the conflict. Get you heads out of yours asses, and make the land offer that proves that Israel does really want peace. 

I notice that whenever I argue with an Israel hater, once I poke enough holes in their Israel-hating bubble they start with insults and name-calling. Israel haters can’t stand the intrusion of reality into their “blame the Jews” fantasy world. So in return, thou art an artless beetle-headed foot-licker and a gorbellied flap-mouthed measle.

Then there’s the whining about bias in the sources I use. Bias? You bet, there’s a complete bias toward honesty. You want more bias? Here’s a site exposing the anti-Israel bias at the UK Guardian. Read it and weep. The point is not that there is bias. All sources are biased. The question is: who’s telling the truth? Hint: it ain’t your side.

Then there’s the moral equivalence angle. While the attacks by Jewish extremists are reprehensible, they are condemned by Israeli leadership, unlike Hamas, who takes a “What me worry?” position on their terrorists. And if we look at sheer numbers and fatality rates, there is no comparison to Palestinian homicide bombers, rocket attacks, baby killers, etc.

Palestinian children’s shows are full of anti-Israel incitement and anti-Semitism. Streets and public places are named after terrorist child killers. They do not accept Israel. PA maps show no Israel. Admit it. If Hamas ever decided to live in peace with Israel, the blockades and controls would be gone. They want a state of war against Israel and then they want to whine to the world that Israel isn’t being nice to them.  Again, they don’t have to take responsibility because they have cheerleaders like you.

It seems that if the Palestinians don’t get exactly what they want, rather than negotiate some more, they rev up the killing machine. Of course, now Abbas is avoiding negotiations altogether on a Palestinian state that could have been in place since 1948.

Why should Israel give back any more land in return for nothing (or for rocket attacks in the case of Gaza)?  Israel gave back the Sinai in return for peace, but we’ll see if the Muslim Brotherhood wants to continue that peace or if they, in order to take Egyptians’ minds off of how badly their being burned by their own government and turn their citizens’ savagery toward the Jews, repudiates the agreement. How many times are the Islamic nations allowed to start wars and promote terrorism with no consequences? How many “do overs” are they allowed in their quest to destroy the Jewish state? When has anything ever been demanded of the Palestinians in return for the “painful concessions” always asked of Israel?

Ok, lets get some things straight before we continue.

First off, I “do not” hate Israel. I believe that Israel has the right to exist, and I also believe in the two state solution. I also find it terribly ironic when you talk about how “Israel Haters” are stuck in their “Blame the Jews” Fantasy world, when you yourself are stuck in what could be best described as a “Blame the Arabs” mentality. This is why I called Zionists ignorant, because even I can admit that I can be wrong sometimes, but Zionists can’t. 

Secondly, I do not support Hamas. They are a terrorist organisation, and have committed crimes against the population of Israel. My main arguments are against Israeli foreign policy, and how Israel is the one blocking the route to peace.

So lets get started. So that site you linked to me, while I can’t go through every it posts about the Guardian, being it would take far too long, I can talk about one such story. It uses the story as an example of bias, but it comes from the comment is free section, where anyone can write whatever they want. Even I would admit that the article doesn’t comprehend the full nature of the conflict. 

As for the other stories about the Guardian, they mostly talk about how the Guardian is failing to report the attacks by Militants. I’ve already talked about the subject in another blog, so here it is:

“Its a sad fact that only death can bring the worlds’ attention. Right know, the biggest stories that are coming out of the Middle East are about the Syrian civil war, and the bombings in Iraq. Stories comes and goes, and only those with the biggest headlines get the most attention. Still, just because newspapers are limited, doesn’t mean that the internet isn’t. The fact that we can learn about this here is a bigger triumph for journalism. It’s just up to us to interpret these facts.”

Even you have to admit that at the end of the day, It’s the facts that matter. Even though  the Israeli Leadership condemned these attacks, they have done nothing to prevent further attacks from happening. In fact, it continues to become worse. Even in face of this, nothing seems to have happened to stop these attacks. As for your comparison, it doesn’t really match up when you take into account the Gaza war, where 926 civilians were killed. You can see why Gazans don’t view Israel in a favorable light. 

This whole conflict is based on a eye for an eye mentality. One side attacks, and the other side retaliates. Only Israel has the power to end it, because it is occupying land that legally belongs to Palestine. By giving the land back through negotiations, Hamas and other Militants will lose their support, and their power. They were elected by the people of Gaza, they can be overthrown by the people of Gaza.

Israel however, has refused to agree to this. You claim that Israel has made efforts to give back land, but you don’t back it up. The truth is while Israel talks of peace, settlers continue move into illegally occupied land. They know that this will disrupt the peace process, but they carry on anyway. 

The fact is that the peace process has not gone far enough. Nothing has accomplished for the last decade, and its that reason that the attacks keep on coming. It’s sad to see it go this way, and is also sad how neither side has made any mass attempts of starting the peace process. The only thing they keep doing is point fingers at each other. 

Still, I maintain that Israel is the one that needs to make the first move. It’s continuing occupation of the Gaza strip, and the West bank settlements are the main cause for the conflict today. Arabs have moved on from trying to get rid of Israel. Now they want is rightfully theirs under UN law.

Ahh, so you take the “moral equivalence” route. I know others who take the same mode of thought. You’re all wrong, and here’s why. You have to ignore certain facts in order to still accept it, for example, the two state solution. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in it. Neither Hamas nor the PA, not to mention the rest of the Islamic world believes in it. They have the firearms to wreak violence in quest of their one state solution. That trumps both of our keyboards.

Speaking of Hamas, they admit that 600-700 of their terrorists were killed during Cast Lead. As they wear no uniform it’s easy to pretend that they were civilians. That doesn’t leave room for the previously claimed 926 civilian deaths. Of course Hamas conducts operations from heavy populated areas, using Gazans, especially children as human shields. They militarize schools, hospitals, and mosques hoping that civilians will be killed so that Israel will be condemned.

And there is no “eye for an eye mentality”. Hamas targets women and children. The IDF targets Hamas. Yes, unfortunately Gazan civilians die. Review my section on Hamas’ use of human shields.

You ignore generations of violence to pretend that this is strictly a modern conflict that began after the 6-Day War. Arabs began slaughtering Jews even before Israel became a state. Recall the Hebron Massacre in 1929, and that was only one of many. If the facts matter, then look at facts previous to 1967.

Your analysis of negotiations is, I’m sorry to say, naïve at best. Yes, Hamas was freely elected, but don’t ever look at them to give up power. Any support that Hamas has lost has been due to corruption and the cruel treatment of Gazans. The only way they can be overthrown is through violence by the Palestinian people.  Don’t count on any more free elections in Gaza, at least with non-Hamas candidates. For more on this subject, see Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Islamic world.

How does the land belong to “Palestine?” Egypt and Jordan occupied it from 1948 to 1967 and nobody cared. Before that Jews who moved into Palestine, a backwater of the Ottoman Empire acquired land legally.

It’s time to recognize that the peace process is a myth. As I previously stated, absent the constant refusal of the Arabs to accept it, there could have been a Palestinian state back in 1948. Current Palestinian leadership refuses to negotiate, and previous Palestinian administrations have duped a number of American and Israeli leaders. Good faith was never a Palestinian tactic. That’s obvious by Palestinian intifadas, terrorism, rocket attacks, riots, etc.

Since the Palestinians aren’t interested in peace, but demand to simply be handed everything they demand like a nursery full of spoiled children, why not expand settlements? Palestinians need to be held to the same standard as ever other nation if they expect to become a nation and to know that the longer they refuse peace the more they will lose. It’s called learning to taking responsibility for one’s actions, something that has never been demanded of the Palestinians. By not holding Palestinian leadership accountable (and I don’t mean in the morally equivalent manner you profess) the world allows and encourages Palestinian obstreperousness, hate, and violence.

Who is really willing to live in peace? Look at each society and what they value. (Refer back to the Palestinian public places named after terrorists). There are Jewish, Muslim, and Christian citizens of Israel with equal rights. Not so in Gaza or the West Bank. The Christian minorities are shrinking in both places (while growing in Israel). And Jews? Yeah, right

Debunking the Palestine Lie

• The historian James Parkes wrote: “During the first century after the Arab conquest [670-740 CE], the caliph and governors of Syria and the Holy Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons.”[3]
• In year 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained: “the mosque is empty of worshipers… The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population” (The entire city of Jerusalem had only one mosque?). [4]

Judging from news reports, one might think that Palestinian nationalism has been active as long as Jews and Arabs have been living at the eastern edge of the Mediterra­nean Sea. And as Yasir ‘Arafat rides high since his declaration of a Palestinian state, there is an understandable tendency in the West to accept at face value his insistence that the Palestinians have always sought an independent Palestinian state. In fact, this is far from the truth.

The idea of an Arab state resting between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is, rather, a twentieth-century concept. In­deed, its origins can be traced with surpris­ing precision to a single year — 1920. In January 1920, Palestinian nationalism hard­ly existed; by December of that critical year, it had been born.

The events of 1920 encapsulate the current successes and tribulations of the Palestinian movement. They foreshadow some abiding themes, such as the potential for rapid change and the major role of the Western powers. They also provide insight into the most widely supported but possibly the least successful nationalist cause of this century.

An Israeli magazine recently profiled a Jerusalem Arab chef, Sufian Mustafa, who is bent on demonstrating that there is a uniquely “Palestinian” cuisine. But after much blustering about his ”exclusively Palestinian” creations (“real Palestinians would never cook with such a bland ingredient as cream,” he insisted) Mustafa grudgingly acknowledged that “the Palestinian kitchen is definitely a continuation of the Greater Syrian kitchen, and bears a lot of resemblance to Lebanese, Syrian, and Jordanian cuisine.” I wonder why!

In the parlance of the 1920s-1930s-1940s, the term “Palestine” referred to the Jews, not the Arabs. The Jerusalem Post newspaper was named the Palestine Post. The United Jewish Appeal was called the United Palestine Appeal. Arab spokesmen vehemently denied that Palestine deserved to be a separate country. Philip Hitti, historian and spokesman for the Arab cause, testified to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (a U.S.-British commission trying to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict) in 1946: “Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

Palestinian Activist Would Like To Kill All Chances For Peace With Israel

The author Relandi[1], a real scholar, geographer, cartographer and well known philologist, spoke perfect Hebrew, Arabic and ancient Greek, as well as the European languages. The book was written in Latin. In 1695 he was sent on a sightseeing tour to Israel, at that time known as Palestina. In his travels he surveyed approximately 2500 places where people lived that were mentioned in the bible or Mishnah. His research method was interesting.

He first mapped the Land of Israel.

Secondly, Relandi identifies each of the places mentioned in the Mishnah or Talmud along with their original source. If the source was Jewish, he listed it together with the appropriate sentence in the Holy Scriptures. If the source was Roman or Greek he presented the connection in Greek or Latin.

Thirdly, he also arranged a population survey and census of each community.

1. Not one settlement in the Land of Israel has a name that is of Arabic origin. Most of the settlement names originate in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Roman languages. In fact, till today, except to Ramlah, not one Arabic settlement has an original Arabic name. Till today, most of the settlements names are of Hebrew or Greek origin, the names distorted to senseless Arabic names. There is no meaning in Arabic to names such as Acco (Acre), Haifa, Jaffa, Nablus, Gaza, or Jenin and towns named Ramallah, El Halil and El-Kuds (Jerusalem) lack historical roots or Arabic philology. In 1696, the year Relandi toured the land, Ramallah, for instance, was called Bet’allah (From the Hebrew name Beit El) and Hebron was called Hebron (Hevron) and the Arabs called Mearat HaMachpelah El Chalil, their name for the Forefather Abraham.

2. Most of the land was empty, desolate, and the inhabitants few in number and mostly concentrate in the towns Jerusalem, Acco, Tzfat, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza. Most of the inhabitants were Jews and the rest Christians. There were few Muslims, mostly nomad Bedouins. Nablus, known as Shchem, was exceptional, where approximately 120 people, members of the Muslim Natsha family and approximately 70 Shomronites, lived.

In the Galilee capital, Nazareth, lived approximately 700 Christians and in Jerusalem approximately 5000 people, mostly Jews and some Christians.

The interesting part was that Relandi mentioned the Muslims as nomad Bedouins who arrived in the area as construction and agriculture labor reinforcement, seasonal workers.

In Gaza for example, lived approximately 550 people, fifty percent Jews and the rest mostly Christians. The Jews grew and worked in their flourishing vineyards, olive tree orchards and wheat fields (remember Gush Katif?) and the Christians worked in commerce and transportation of produce and goods. Tiberius and Tzfat were mostly Jewish and except of mentioning fishermen fishing in Lake Kinneret — the Lake of Galilee — a traditional Tiberius occupation, there is no mention of their occupations. A town like Um el-Phahem was a village where ten families, approximately fifty people in total, all Christian, lived and there was also a small Maronite church in the village (The Shehadah family).

The State of Palestine Quiz

The Europeans’ behavior at UNESCO indicates that just as UNESCO is willing to undermine its mission to harm Israel, so the Europeans are willing to undermine the declared goals of their foreign policy for the sake of harming Israel.
This state of affairs has important consequences for Israel. To date, Israel has placed fostering good relations with EU member states high on its list of priorities. In light of the Europeans’ behavior at UNESCO, this ranking should be revised. The Europeans do not merit such high consideration by Israel.
Finally, the UNESCO vote exposed disturbing truths about US President Barack Obama’s position on Israel. Obama has been widely praised by American Jewish leaders as well as by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his announced commitment to veto the draft Security Council resolution recommending that the PLO/PA be granted full state membership at the UN. Obama’s pledge - forced out of him by massive congressional pressure - is touted as proof of his commitment to the US alliance with Israel.
But Obama’s response to the PLO/PA’s bid for UNESCO membership tells a different story. In the lead up to the vote, the Obama administration went out of its way not to threaten UNESCO. It did not threaten to withdraw the US from the organization. Instead, just days before the vote, US Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter addressed the body and praised the “great things [that] have happened at UNESCO,” over the past year. Kanter then announced the US’s bid for reelection to UNESCO’s executive board.
The administration did not attack the move as one that undermines chances of peace. It did not note that by endorsing the PA/PLO’s decision to act unilaterally, UNESCO was making it all the more difficult for Israel and the Palestinians to achieve a negotiated peace deal. Rather, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sufficed with claiming that the move was “regrettable,” and “premature.”
Administration officials did not make clear that in accordance with US law, all US funding to UNESCO would end if the Palestinian membership bid was approved. Rather administration officials joined forces with UN officials to lobby Congress to change the law.
As Claudia Rosett reported in Forbes on Tuesday, David Killion, the US ambassador to UNESCO, made what bordered on an apology for the US funding cut-off when he said, “We sincerely regret that the strenuous and well-intentioned efforts of many delegations to avoid this result fell short.”
Killion added, “We pledge to continue our efforts to find ways to support and strengthen the important work of this vital organization.”
So after UNESCO thumbed its nose at the US, after undermined its own mission, breached its own charter and seriously diminished chances of Palestinian peace with Israel by accepting “Palestine” as a member state, the Obama administration reacted with near groveling apologetics.
TO UNDERSTAND the full significance of the administration’s behavior, it is important to contrast it with the administration’s response to the Israeli government’s decision in the aftermath of the UNESCO vote to approve the construction of housing for Jews in Jerusalem, Ma’aleh Adumim and Efrat. All of the housing units will be built in areas that will remain part of Israel even after a peace deal. And the administration knows this.
But speaking of the government’s decision, a US official told Reuters that the administration is “deeply disappointed by the announcement.”
“We continue to make clear to the [Israeli] government [that] unilateral actions such as these work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties.”
So on the one hand, the Palestinians’ move to abandon the peace process and UNESCO’s support for their move is merely “regrettable” and “premature.” But on the other hand, Israel’s decision not to discriminate against Jewish property rights undermines efforts to resume peace talks and harms prospects for an agreement.

The Palestinian Wall of Lies