Letter: A Response to the Misleading Response, Part One

I am responding to Ms. Ito’s letter “Response to Misleading Picture of Israeli Settlers in Judea and Samaria” (BJN, 11/19/2025). I have divided my response into two parts because of length. The first part goes through her comments about the League of Nations. The second part will address the Oslo Accords, her history of Jewish towns “taken over by Muslims,” numerous “Palestinian land grabs” in Area C (controlled by the IDF with a plethora of roadblocks for security) and her citing Palestinian violence as the cause for the absence of permanent status negotiations.

I know Ms. Ito is passionate about the importance of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people and to the State of Israel. That is a separate issue I will address later. What I fervently object to is her selective use of history and dismissing a newspaper or NGO that has criticized Israel as not being pro-Israel. Taking her printed comments literally, I would have to draw the conclusion that to be pro-Israel a paper or NGO would not be able to report or editorialize on any issue that opposes an Israeli action or policy.

She is especially critical of Haaretz  (The Land). Haaretz , founded in 1918, is the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel.  According to the Center for Research Libraries, among Israel’s daily newspapers, “Haaretz is considered the most influential and respected for both its news coverage and its commentary.” Haaretz describes itself as having “a broadly liberal outlook both on domestic issues and on international affairs”,  After publishing a series of investigations of abuses  by government officials and the armed forces  in November  of 2024, the Israeli government ordered a boycott of Haaretz by government officials and anyone working for a government-funded body, and banned government advertising with the newspaper

The core of Ms. Ito’s response to me is really the centerpiece of the Israeli Palestinian conflict going back to the first waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and foundation of the state. The issue: “Whose land is it?”  This is the existential issue between Israel and the Palestinians. Not a physical existential threat but a psychological one encompassing themes of legitimacy, rights, identification, and self-esteem. Extremists on both sides, occupying positions of power and control in government and outside in the streets, have made sure that this existential threat dominates the narrative in order to avoid finding a path to a mutual understanding and acknowledgment of the other’s history and pain that hopefully could lead to a compromise that will move us away from violence  and toward using our mutual strengths to build a true holy land.

I will be up front about my Jewish politics. Over the decades I have found my home in such groups as the Jewish Liberation Project, a Labor Zionist organization founded in 1968, that supported Palestinian self-determination and the New Jewish Agenda in the 1980’s when we helped sponsor speaking tours in the U.S. to raise money for Israeli reservists in Yesh G’vul (There is a Border) who went to military prison rather than serve in the occupied territories. The money went to their families to compensate for their loss of the reservists’ stipend because of their being in prison.

In 2017 I went to work on a project in a youth center in the Silwan neighborhood of Jerusalem and in the South Hebron Hills with the Center for Jewish Non-Violence.  We attempted to help a Palestinian family reclaim their caves next to a “hilltop outpost.” Our efforts were physically smashed by the IDF. I also worked with the Hebron International Resource Network, writing a grant to obtain funding for an addition to a Palestinian girl’s high school so they could add a junior academic year.  Through an interpreter, I interviewed the students about their goals and dreams and what they gained for themselves in all areas of their lives by attending school.

I am a Zionist and will defend Zionism as a vital and necessary historical movement and the need for the creation of the state of Israel for our survival. I am vehemently opposed to the Occupation and to American Jewish actions, both individual and community, that defend, sustain and expand the Occupation either through their influence in shaping American political policy, funding the settlements in any manner, and in curtailing and shaping discourse in our Jewish community.

                                                                              My Response. Part One

First. I did not lambast the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria. In referring to those settlers committing violence, I stated that  “These terrorist settlers have put themselves above secular law as they fulfill what they consider to be a holy religious action: bringing us closer to the final redemption.”  

Second. The issue of B’Tselem.  Ms. Ito states that B’Tselem has long been anti-Israel and refers to the organization CAMERA to prove her statement. CAMERA, itself, has been criticized as a right-wing organization whose purpose is to defend the position of the Israeli government. I have to admit that I have not done an exhaustive study of the critiques of B’Tselem by CAMERA.

I only referred to B’Tselem for the history of both the Arab and Israeli towns of Sussia. If one objects to this reference, I suggest reading the detailed and  fascinating history of Susya by Shalya Rothberg in the December 26, 2016 issue of Tikkun, https://www.tikkun.org/the-truth-about-palestinian-susya/. This article extensively quotes Israeli government sources as to the legal ownership of land by Arabs and history of their residence in this area. And yes, Tikkun is a left-leaning publication. The author, incidentally, describes himself as a religious Zionist, so his orientation is not “radical anti-Zionist left”.  If Ms. Ito does not like these references, I request she give us a reference for the history of these towns. 

Third. I did not refer to the movie “No Promised Land”. I referred to “No Other Land” which documents the on-going destruction of a Palestinian village in the Masafer Yatta area that can be documented by reports in newspapers such as the Times of Israel. Its editor, David Horovitz has described the paper as having a centrist editorial orientation. The IDF has informed the High Court that the Masafer Yatta  is “Firing Zone 918,” a vital military training area and that all structures must be removed.  This is one of the tactics used by Israel to “legally” rid Area C of Palestinians.

I find it fascinating that Ms. Ito has not made a statement as to the violence from “settler” communities or provided any documentation to contradict that this violence does not exist.  I wonder how she would describe the 400 settlers in the Gush Etzion bloc (south of Jerusalem and Bethlehem) whose petition criticizing the settler violence begins with a  verse from the Torah warning the Jewish people to behave in such a way “that the land not spew you out.”

My request to you Ms. Ito:  Let us sit down and review all the incidents of violence and murder reported by the IDF and documented by videos as well as those” thousands” of attacks committed by Palestinians and their “numerous land grabs.” Let us go incident by incident and look at the various sources and their documentation so we all can know the “real and whole story.”  

League of Nations 1922 statement and the Balfour Declaration

Ms. Ito states that the “League of Nations allocated all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) for Jewish settlement in 1922.”  This is not true. For the complete 1922 statement of the League of Nations, you can google “United Nations Digital Library System. Text of Mandate for Palestine.”  If you do not trust the accuracy of this source, feel free to access https://israeled.org/mandate-palestine/ by the Center for Israel Education or the webpage, Israel Forever Foundation Mandate for Palestine. Both organizations are unabashedly pro-Israel.  

So what did the League of Nations Say?

The League of Nations Mandate does not mention Judea and Samaria. The 1922 statement entrusts Great Britain with the responsibility to put into effect the intent of the Balfour Declaration (a letter from Lord Arthur James Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild). Balfour was the foreign secretary under Prime Minister Lloyd George and Rothschild (a banker and former member of parliament) was a close friend of Chaim Weizman, then president of the Zionist organization and, later, Israel’s first president.

The Balfour Declaration pledged that Great Britain would “facilitate” the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” (You can access this letter from the Jewish Virtual Library’s website.) The League of Nations recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” A Jewish agency would be recognized “as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine.” Throughout the document you will find Palestine used and the term Palestinian referring to anyone who lived in the Mandate. By the way, all residents, including both Jews and Arabs, were issued Palestinian passports and birth certificates. The identity “Palestinian” referred to anyone who lived in the territory of Mandatory Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration and the League statement made the following clear; the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion were to be safeguarded. Jewish immigration was to be facilitated “under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed.”   

A state was not promised and even the size of the homeland was not delineated. Of course, the Partition plan in 1947, gave the Yishuv (the Jewish community) 55% of the land with the remainder to be a Palestinian state with Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and some adjoining areas to be an international zone. The plan called for the protection of religious and minority rights. We know that the Arab states rejected it; the war ensued and along with it the Nakbah, and Jordan gained control of the West Bank. Jordan officially annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950; only Great Britain, Iraq and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The United Nations rejected the annexation as illegal. So, in this case, the United Nations has been consistent in its policy when rejecting Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the West Bank.  The U.N. never demanded Jordan withdraw; Resolution 242 called for Israel’s withdrawal. Its preamble refers to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security.”