Blood Libel #9 | “Israel steals Palestinian land.”
Anti-Zionist:
Israel is stealing Palestinian land.
Pro-Zionist:
Can you explain what you mean by “Palestinian land”? Who exactly owned it — and when?
(They’ll likely reference 1967 or settlements.)
Pro-Zionist:
Before 1948, there was no Palestinian state. The land was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, then the British Mandate. The 1947 UN partition plan proposed two states — one Jewish, one Arab — and Israel accepted it. The Arabs rejected it and declared war.
In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war after surrounding Arab states threatened annihilation. Since then:
Israel has offered land for peace multiple times to the Palestinians — in 2000, 2008, and 2020.
Israel left Gaza in 2005 — and got rockets in return.
In the West Bank, most land disputes are in Area C, which was agreed under Oslo to be under Israeli control pending formalizing peace.
This is not land theft. It’s disputed territory that could have become a Palestinian state — if their leadership had ever said yes or ever chose peace over terror.
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS
Palestine <> Palaestina
Around the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (circa 132 CE, although the precise timing remains unclear) — a large-scale armed rebellion initiated by the Jews of Judea, led by Simon bar Kokhba, against the Roman Empire — the Romans changed the name of the province of Judea to Palaestina.
To be more precise, the regions of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Idumea now became part of a larger province known as Syria Palaestina.
It is commonly believed that the Romans changed Judea’s name (which literally means “Place of the Jews”) as a way of severing the Jewish connection to the land, and that they chose “Palestine” because it was derived from the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Jews.
Some question whether the evidence exists to support this claim.
In “Why the Romans Actually Gave 'Palestine' Its Name” one associate professor at the University of London, David Jacobson, suggests that:
Palaistine and Palaistinoi were not exclusively related to the Philistines. (Josephus was actually the first to refer to the Philistines as Palaistinoi.) He provocatively argues that “Palestine” actually meant Israel, noting that the word “Palestine” is remarkably like the Greek palaistes, meaning “wrestler,” “rival,” or “adversary,” the meaning of Israel derived from the Biblical episode in which Jacob wrestled with an angel (Genesis 32:25-27).2
Regardless of the etymology, it is irrefutable that Palestinia referred to the Kingdom of the Jews. While some have tried to manufacture a historical Palestinian connection to the land of Israel and even Wikipedia has been weaponized as a propaganda tool, an Arab state named Palestine has never existed. In fact, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the term "Palestinians" hadn't yet solidified as a distinct national identity. The population of Palestine was diverse, including both Jewish and Arab residents, and a significant portion of the Arab population came from various parts of the Ottoman Empire and the broader Arab world. The Arab’s that now “identify” as Palestinians moved to “Palestine” from regions like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, seeking economic opportunities or escaping political instability in their home countries. The term "Palestinian" gained prominence in the 20th century, particularly with the rise of Arab nationalism in opposition of the Zionist movement.
Debunking the Shrinking Palestinian Maps
One of the most viral tools in anti-Israel propaganda is the set of four maps labeled “Palestinian loss of land.” This series, shown below, progressing from 1946 to the present, shows green-colored “Palestinian” land disappearing as white “Israeli” territory spreads across the map.
These maps are emotionally powerful—and factually dishonest. They erase history, blur legal realities, and promote a blood libel under the guise of cartography. Here’s what each map gets wrong:
Map #1: “Palestine – 1946”
The lie: This map depicts nearly all of the land as “Palestinian,” with a few scattered Jewish patches—suggesting Jews were marginal foreigners and land thieves.
The truth:
In 1946, there was no sovereign state called Palestine—only British Mandatory Palestine, administered by the British Empire.
The green areas shown were not privately owned by Arabs, but largely public lands, desert, or communal landswith no legal owner.
The white areas represent land legally purchased by Jews—often at high prices from absentee Arab landowners.
Arabs were not “Palestinian nationals” at the time. Most identified as Syrian, Jordanian, or pan-Arab. The term “Palestinian” was not widely used by Arabs until the mid-20th century.
Map #2: “UN Partition Plan – 1947”
The lie: This map implies Israel’s creation was imposed on Arabs without consent, and that the map reflects a historical reality of land distribution.
The truth:
The map depicts a proposal, not reality. It was the UN’s partition plan, which Israel accepted and the Arab world rejected.
Had the Arabs accepted it, there would have been both a Jewish and Arab state in 1948. Instead, five Arab nations launched a war to destroy Israel.
The land shown in white was offered to Israel. But no borders were finalized—because Palestinian and Arab leaders chose war over statehood.
Map #3: “1949–1967” (Armistice Lines)
The lie: This map shows Israel having expanded into more “Palestinian land,” with Gaza and the West Bank portrayed as belonging to Palestinians.
The truth:
These lines reflect armistice agreements, not recognized borders.
From 1948 to 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank. There was no Palestinian state—and no effort by Arab states to create one.
Palestinians were not granted independence by Egypt or Jordan during this time.
Israel’s territory grew because it won a defensive war in 1948 and 1967, after rejecting nations tried to destroy it.
Map #4: “Today”
The lie: The final map shows Israel covering almost the entire area, with the remaining Palestinian “islands” boxed in—implying Israel colonized and wiped out Palestine.
The truth:
Today, the majority of Palestinians live under their own governments: Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
According to the Oslo Accords (which Palestinians signed), the West Bank is divided into Areas A, B, and C. Palestinians have full or partial control over Areas A and B.
Jewish communities in the West Bank occupy less than 2% of the land—not the vast white expanse these maps suggest.
The maps exclude Israel’s multiple withdrawals: Sinai (1982), Lebanon (2000), and Gaza (2005)—each time met with terrorism, not peace.
The Real Purpose of These Maps
These maps are not history. They are propaganda—designed to erase context, obscure Arab rejectionism, and portray Israel’s existence as inherently illegitimate.
They ignore the fact that:
Israel has repeatedly offered land for peace—rejected every time.
There was never a Palestinian state to “shrink.”
Much of the land in question was uninhabited desert or state-owned land.
The borders today reflect war outcomes, peace treaties, and signed agreements—not unilateral theft.
As Emanuel Miller wrote:
These maps do not show the truth. They show a narrative—one designed to demonize Israel and erase history.
Why Don’t the Palestinian’s Have a State of their Own?
Often we hear from uninformed people questions along the lines of
So you are denying the existence of Palestinians? Why not go for a 2 state solution? That is really the only solution. Jews wanted a country. They got it. Why can't Palestinians have a country too?
Here is a very simple response worth remembering.
First of all, yes, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are a historical fabrication. Golda Meir had a Palestinian passport. A terrorist named Arafat hijacked the word to describe Jordanians and other Arabs. There never was a Palestinian Arab state. If you disagree, kindly tell me when it was established and what the national anthem was and who was its Prime Minister?
Second of all, the Arabs living in the land know as Mandatory Palestine were offered a state. In 1947. They rejected it. And then they repeated that same mistake over and over again. Here is the history of opportunities to have a "Palestinian" State:
1937 THE PEEL COMMISSION
1947 THE UN PARTITION VOTE
1967 THE KHARTOUM SUMMIT
1991 THE MADRID CONFERENCE
2000 THE CAMP DAVID SUMMIT
2001 THE TABA SUMMIT
2007 THE ANNAPOLIS CONFERENCE
2008 THE REALIGNMENT PLAN
2010 THE JOINT PEACE TALKS
2013 THE JOINT PEACE TALKS
2019 THE BAHRAIN WORKSHOP
2020 THE TRUMP PEACE PLAN
As the famous quote goes, the Palestinian’s never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
History has demonstrated that the Palestinian’s don’t want a state. They only want to ensure that Israel doesn’t exist as a Jewish State. Sorry for not accommodating their genocidal aspirations.
Here's an informative video that is worth watching that discusses "10 things you didn't know about the Arab-Israeli conflict." We've heard that the UN established the State of Israel as "compensation for the Holocaust" is false. Enjoy this video.
Here is another great video worth watching. It's Alan Dershowitz giving a lecture at Yale where he previewed the documentary based upon his book: "The Case for Israel". If you haven't read the book, or watched the documentary... you should!
Here is Dr. Einat Wilf's profound discussion on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this powerful talk, she delves into the decades-long development of two key aspects: the sustaining of the Palestinian vision and the global mental preparation that led to the events of October 7th, 2023. Dr. Wilf challenges prevailing delusions, addressing the roots of the conflict and the need for a radical vision to transform societies.
An “Unbiased” Perspective
I share these articles published by Tomas Pueyo in an effort to provide a far deeper and less “biased” analysis of the conflict (yes, I acknowledge that I have a bias).
In October and November of 2023, he wrote a series of articles that will challenge you to your very core, but will also raise your awareness of the complexities of this conflict and the challenges we face in achieving peace.
Will Israel Be at War? – The geopolitics of Israel.
Who Can Claim Palestine? – The history of the region, and how that translates into claims from the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
Do Arab States Support Palestine? – Why other Arab states are ambiguous (to say the least) about their support to Palestinians.
The Gaza Trap – The geopolitics of Gaza.
The Three State Solution – The geopolitics of the West Bank.
The Problem of West Bank Settlements – Details about Israel’s settlement strategy.
The Struggle for the Soul of Israel – How internal politics in Israel work, and how that affects the Palestinians.
His writings are generally written in a measured and thoughtful tone, and it makes a sincere effort to present both Israeli and Palestinian narratives without overt moral judgment.
That said, I want to forewarn the reader, these are not fully neutral, and some biases are worth noting:
Moral equivalency framing: While this might seem neutral, placing equal blame or legitimacy on both sides can obscure asymmetries in power, intent, and behavior (e.g., Hamas’s genocidal charter vs. Israeli military restraint).
Lack of detail on Palestinian political responsibility: His articles don’t clearly address the role of Hamas, Palestinian Authority corruption, or how Palestinian rejectionism has repeatedly derailed peace processes.
Educational focus without accountability: His solution — changing narratives through education — is idealistic but overlooks the intentional disinformation and indoctrination that occurs in Palestinian media and school systems, especially in Gaza. And, it completely ignores the fact that the re-education happened only after complete military defeat where the narrative was able to be controlled.
Implicit framing of occupation as origin point: Although he attempts to be historical, his framing often begins with 1967 and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, which subtly implies that Israeli actions sparked the conflict, rather than a long-standing pattern of Arab aggression and rejectionism going back to 1947 or earlier.
I do believe his writings are a good-faith attempt at fairness and are far more balanced than most mainstream commentary on this issues.
In the end, he concludes that a two-state solution is the appropriate end state (e.g., Israel has a right to statehood within its current borders and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have the right to Statehood).
And, he does acknowledge that the Arab World rejected every opportunity to have peace while the Israelis accepted peace at each turn and therefore the scales do somewhat tip in our favor.
So if you have any interest in learning a bit more about the complex and challenging history of the Middle East... this is as good a resource as I have found to date albeit a biased one.
Spend some time in the comment section as well... there's a lot of interesting discussion there. If anyone has any contrary evidence... I'm always open to hearing where he's misstated a fact.