"Historically precise" depends on where you start the argument

Submitted by Adam (Israel), Apr 5, 2014 at 10:19

Thank you, Mr. Pipes, for responding to my comment.

In your response you cite another article where you write: "Using the term West Bank is not tantamount to adopting the Palestinian narrative but being historically precise."

The problem with this explanation is simple... the term "West Bank" originates with Jordan's illegal invasion and occupation of the area when, in 1948, it joined other Muslim states in the attempt to abort the nascent State of Israel.

If one considers Jordan's actions as legitimate, then your claim to historical precision would be acceptable.

I am in agreement with those (like Shmuel Katz) who think the facts do not support Jordan and the other Muslim states (nor their allies in the US State Department and the CFR).

I urge you to rethink your position and to cease using terms that give unwarranted legitimacy to the arguments of those who seek to eliminate the State of Israel, or to reduce the putative Jewish State to the poairion of dhimmitude.

Respectfully,

Adam

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".