In Yehudi Echad’s letter, “What Occupation?” (February 14, 2019) he calls out, “young people of Jewish ancestry” and “liberal millennials” for not recognizing that “there is no occupation in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria,” and not recognizing that the status of these areas is rather “…control of land that is a result of aggression.” Although I do not know Echad personally, as a staunch supporter of Israel and an adamant Zionist, I assume that I most likely agree with much Echad’s political views regarding both the validity and necessity of Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria, and that generations of Palestinian leaders are at fault in not achieving a resolution suitable both to their people and the people of Israel. However, if we are to ever find a peaceful resolution, it is important to get our facts straight. While Echad blames the view of Israel as an occupying force on people who are “…bred on ignorance of the history of the region since 1948,” I’m afraid it is he who, in his letter, sadly displays ignorance on the subject.

While it is true that, regardless of who fired the first shot, the Six Day War can and should be viewed as a defensive war on Israel’s part, it is equally true that the reason many people view Judea and Samaria as occupied territories is that they are, in fact, occupied. For better or for worse, Israel made the decision not to annex vast areas of territory captured in the 1967 war and instead enforced a military occupation which remains in place to this day. Some areas captured in 1967, such as Gilo, were indeed annexed after the war with the passing of the Jerusalem Law in 1980 and are not typically on the front page of newspapers or shouted about at rallies. Other areas, such as East Jerusalem, were annexed by Israel as well but remain controversial for obvious reasons. Most areas captured in 1967, however, remain, by Israel’s choice, under military rule, and this reality must be acknowledged if we are to have meaningful conversations with those who disagree with us regarding the value of the Jewish State. While Arabs living in Israel are, indeed, granted full citizenship and democratic rights unheard of in most of the Arab world (including areas currently under Palestinian control), Palestinians (but not Jews) living in Judea and Samaria are not citizens of Israel, do not have the right to vote in Israeli elections, drive with different license plates on their cars than do their Jewish neighbors, get stopped at security checkpoints and live daily with the numerous other indignities that come, rightfully or not, with living under military occupation.

To be clear, I am not stating my own view as to whether choosing not to annex Judea and Samaria is a good decision on the part of Israel or a poor one. There are politically far right solutions to the problem (annex the territories, expel the Palestinians), far left solutions (annex the territories, grant citizenship to the Palestinians), and more moderate solutions (ending the military occupation through land swaps, shared sovereignty and other two state solutions). However, to state as Echad does that, “One would hesitate to call it an occupation if one realizes that Israel acted in self-defense and as a result of Palestinian aggressive action, Israel controlled this territory,” betrays an ignorance of history and current events that I fear will only continue the cycle of misunderstanding and violence that has permeated the region and continues to affect our brethren, families and friends.

The reason people refer to Judea and Samaria as “occupied territories” is not because people are ignorant, anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, despite the fact that Israel took control of these areas in self-defense and the fact that many people who do protest the occupation are, indeed, ignorant, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. Rather, it is because Israel has chosen to retain those territories under military occupation instead of annexing them and granting citizenship rights to all inhabitants. It is okay to agree with that decision, but at least get your facts straight.