The Map of Israel’s 1967 Borders That Obama Doesn’t Want You to See
By Ken Falkenstein | Friday, May 20th, 2011 | PolicyObama wants to create a hostile Islamist terrorist state in the heart of Israel that would leave Israel with borders that are 9 miles wide in the middle of the country. To all of you American Jews who blindly vote for leftist Democrats like Obama in election after election, are you waking up yet?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently the Vice President of the Down Syndrome Association of Hampton Roads and practices as a civil litigation attorney with the law firm of Poole Mahoney PC in Virginia Beach. His concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
Comments
45 Responses to "The Map of Israel’s 1967 Borders That Obama Doesn’t Want You to See"
Questions: (1) what are the internationally recognized boundaries of Israel today? Are the “occupied territories” just that–occupied? (2) If the 1967 borders are “indefensible” how is that Israel without the massive attack and ended up with more ground? (3) What has been the previous American policy on this issue in prior administrations?
It doesn’t matter what they were before. In 1967 Israel was attacked by her neighbors, and SHE WON – therefore, Israel gets to decide where the lines are. This is not rocket science people, basic rules of warfare for all of human history, to he who wins goes the decision of what that looks like. I find this type of “give back” talk especially odious since Israel did not begin any of the wars in which it gained said “contested” territory, she was attacked, and won – game over.
You’re right, Craig — Israel should have just annexed it outright and pushed every Palestinian across the Jordan River… totally humane solution…
/sarcasm
Actually, that’s exactly what they should have done and should do–they’re doing it anyway. since Jordan or any other Arab nation would not take them and locked them in refugee camps under control of Jordan. I see nobody can answer my questions. But considering there wasn’t even a nation of Israel prior to 1946 for at least two centuries, the whole talk about who has the right to what seems rather moot. Maybe we should give it back to the Romans. The fact is, they are there and just ought to make it official. And no, the game is hardly over.
Sorry, close to 2,000 years
Craig your questions aren’t that interesting. But here goes. Q1. Israel is defined so to speak by the UN and its resolutions. Since the UN is dominated by anti Israeli and anti Jewish states (excluding the US save for the admin of Carter and Obama) they will be biased against Israel. Q2. indefensible against even small scale weapons such as mortars Q3. Google it since it varies. However, it is safe to say that no previous admin to Obama except for Carter directly approved the ascendancy of radical elements (eg Muslim Brotherhood) in the surrounding countries.
How many times does it have to be repeated that Obama did NOT state that Israel should return to 1967 borders. He said, specifically, “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” a formulation that is consistent with the positions of all the parties to the dispute, including most Israelis, and with stated U.S. policy at least since 2004, if not earlier.
I find it interesting that virtually every criticism I see of Obama over this matter distorts the meaning of his words by omitting the part about mutually agreed swaps and the final clause of the sentence. If what Obama said was so horrible, why won’t Conservatives quote him accurately and completely?
Further, as I noted in an earlier comment, Obama’s formulation about the borders was not in a vacuum. He made other comments regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that, taken as a whole, reflect strong support for Israel, including:
- Reiterating unwavering support for Israel’s security;
- Opposing the effort of Palestinians to have the UN General Assembly vote on a Palestinian state (a big problems for Israel);
- Confirming that a precondition to any negotiation is Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state
Indeed, Obama even further addressed the issue of the borders in the next paragraph of his speech, saying, “As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security.”
Unfortunately, like other items in the speech reflecting Obama’s and the United States’ commitment to Israel, which not only don’t fit into the GOP meme that is trying to scare American Jews about Obama, but completely contradict it, this is is completely ignored by Republicans in their effort to distort Obama into being anti-Israel.
Obama talks out of both sides out of his mouth. Why does our President side with terrorists? Thank God Netanyahu is a true diplomat for Israel. This is the first time in my knowledge in my lifetime a President of the United States did not do everything to protect Israel.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/netanyahu-white-house-obamas-mideast-speech/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/20/obama-netanyahu-meet-amid-strained-israel-relations/
aznew, I listened to his speech and he said to return to the 1967 borders. It is what it is. Give it up.
Aznew, your repeating Obama’s quotes is repeating the ignorance of his statements. The “swaps” and all of the other drivel is based on the assumption that there are two parties to negotiate. The problem is that the Palestinians don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist along with a lot of other Arabs. If Obama can solve that one then he may truly be the “anointed” one but I don’t think the ancient prophets really had him in mind.
Craig,
Israels internationally recognized borders are what you see in green in the displayed map.
Govgirl,
It is more complicated then that. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 says that occupying powers are not allowed to transfer portions of their civilian population into territory it occupies. Israel is a signatory of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements in the West Bank violate this article.
Shaun Kenney,
That is what some members of Netanyahu’s coalition are in favor of, deportation of the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank. Another suggestion has been for Israel to keep the land, allow the Palestinians to stay, but not grant them citizenship (they suggest the Palestinians should be citizens of Jordan even if they have always lived in the newly annexed territory).
You see, Israel can not annex the land and grant the Palestinians living there citizenship let alone allow the return of refugees living in other nations such as Lebanon. Were this to happen, it would not take long, due to the higher birth rate in the Palestinian population, for there to be a Muslim majority within the expanded borders.
Tim J – would it surprise you to learn that I sort of agree with you? Israel does not have a partner in peace. In fact, Obama expressly made this point in his speech, as well — that is my point, exactly.
There is a serious debate to be had about the language used in Obama’s speech and what it might mean for Israel and U.S.-Israeli relations going forward. The reference to 1967 borders seems like a reiteration of existing American policy in many ways, but there is no denying two facts: First, Obama’s language is slightly different than the language used by Bush in 2004; and second, for whatever reason, Obama chose to expressly state this policy rather than, as prior administrations have done, simply pursue it in a sub rosa manner. In this sense, also, Obama’s formulation is at odds with the position of Netanyahu and Likud, at least in the sense that they believe in a greater Israel stretching from the sea to the Jordan and, in truth, are not particularly interested in ever reaching a settlement with the Palestinians.
Regardless, as I say, there is a serious and meaningful debate to be had. Unfortunately, the debate started by Republicans in the wake of Obama’s speech is not it.
To suggest that Obama is anti-Israel is absurd. He is no such thing.
Rather, at worst, Obama simply disagrees with Bibi Netanyahu about the way forward. This does not make him anti-Israel, any more than disagreeing with Obama on a matter of policy makes one anti-American. Indeed, Netanyahu and Likud are not even supported by a majority of Israelis.
So, once again rather than have a meaningful debate about the real issues here, we are having a riduculous argument over whether Obama is anti-Israel and whether Jews who support him are, therefore, stupid, asleep, self-destructive, naive, or whatever.
This argument is not about Israel or Jews, but about Obama, and while framing the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East as whether Obama is anti-Israel or not might serve the interests of Republicans and American conservatives, is actually damages Israel.
The problem for Republicans is not, as Ken suggests, that most Jews are asleep. The problem, rather, is that when it comes to Israel, most Jews are wide awake, and have decided to support Obama.
And in Fairfax County, Tom Davis and other establishment Republicans are backing David Ramadan for delegate in Loudon County’s 87th District. Ramadan is a Muslim and will not explain ties to CAIR (an unindicted co-conspirstor in the Holy Land Terrorist investigation). Ramadan has ties to other radical Muslim groups and will not explain them. Does he support Sharia Law?
[...] The Map of Israel’s 1967 Borders That Obama Doesn’t Want You to See Bearing Drift Obama wants to create a hostile Islamist terrorist state in the heart of Israel that would leave Israel with borders that are 9 miles wide in the middle of the country. See the map. [...]
Aznew, isn’t it ironic that netanyahu is more pro America than obsama.. with friends like Barack someday Israel may become Judenfrei. This was what the grand mufti wanted all along.
The excuses from you activist leftist jews in denial of the facts on the ground is not amazing.. In fact it is historically repeated over and over. Many denied what was coming right before the holocaust and remained in place only to get slaughtered while a few, like both of my grandfathers, read the tea leaves and got the fuck out of the russian german polish border zones alive.. The ‘wise’ jews who denied what was happening made their families an easy kill.
I differ with you and your leftist tribesman and side with the reasoned minds I find more prevalent on the right, not that I agree with them all the time either.
Regards from the right.
James – What fact on the ground in Israel have I denied? I have said throughout this discussion that it is the Palestinians, that are the roadblock to peace. All I have argued is that the characterization of Obama as anti-Israel is incorrect and simply unsupported by any fact.
But here is a fact on the ground for you. There are a number of existential threats to Israel, and guess what, Palestinian terrorism and the threat of another Arab land war are not, at this point, among them. Israel should rightly be terrified of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon. Long-range Israeli planners are quite concerned about demographic trends that show Israel will no longer be a majority Jewish country in the not-too-distant future. And Israeli politicians and diplomats should be concerned about Israeli diplomatic isolation.
Compared with all of that, the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians overborders is small potatoes. The danger of the conflict is not that the Palestinians might actually do Israel lasting political or military harm — quite frankly, it is difficult to think of a more inept “nation” (aspirationally speaking, of course) that Palestine. Their conflict with Israel is like me playing Michael Jordan one on one — Jordan need not worry about me actually scoring, much less winning the game — only that in my pathetic efforts to do so that I don’t inadvertently injure him. So, these red herrings are paraded out by Republicans and Conservatives in pursuit of their own political objectives (in this case, the defeat of Obama in 2012), albeit ostensibly in defense of Israel and, by extension, Jews. In reality, these efforts damage the interests of both.
what are the pre mexican war boundaries?
Madkono,
OK, where do we draw the line? How about Roman Empire lines before the Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Huns etc invaded? I believe what separates us from those times are things like the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were not existent back during the times of the Mexican-American War anymore then they were existent during Roman times. Israel signed off on the Geneva Conventions and as a signatory, she should be expected to honor her commitments.
At the outset of the Six Days War in 1967, Jordanian artillery shelled Tel Aviv. Israel was so narrow that Jordanian field guns clearly within the Jordanian-occupied territory could hit Tel Aviv.
Clearly Israel can not go back to such an arrangement.
Henry,
OK that what do we do with all the Palestinians currently living in the West Bank? If the West Bank is annexed by Israel, should Israel give them equal rights of citizenship or be allowed to pack them up in box cars and deport them?
Netanyahu claims President Obama is not dealing with the facts and I wonder how Bibi is going to deal with these facts.
@aznew- Your analogy is incorrect. A correct analogy would be if Michael Jordan were forced at gunpoint to play a game of one-on-one with you with his family’s life depending on the outcome, but he is only allowed to play defense and must play with both of his hands tied behind his back – and if he ever actually scores a point, it gets retracted because it wasn’t fair.
@LD – Still dodging my question: Why do you steadfastly refuse to condemn the Palestinians for their thousands of attempts to kill innocent Israelis, for their maps in their schools that don’t show Israel, for their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, for the fact that they teach the Blood Libel in their schools, for the fact that Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been constant best-sellers among the Palestinians, and for the fact that the Palestinians have never complied with their obligations under any of their agreements with Israel. Until you do so – unconditionally, unequivocally, and without attempting to draw an equivalence with Israel – your comments lack any moral authority.
Ken – I get your point, though I think you overstate the case. Regardless, Jordan would stull beat me, even with those handicaps.
LD – I’m usually on your side in the debates I’ve seen you have here at BD, but in this case, Ken’s critique is spot on. It is not that Israel’s actions are without blemish, but rather that they must be viewed in context. I don’t know whether you refusal to acknowledge that context deprives you of moral authority — that’s not for me to judge — but it does render your views on the situation somewhat beside the point.
Ken,
OK, I condemn the Palestinians for all you say. I especially condemn Hamas for continuing to strike out at Israel after the withdrawal from Gaza.
Now, will you be fair and even handed as well? Will you condemn the expansion of settlements in the West Bank or are we only allowed to criticize one side?
How did that Rapture thing work out? Anyone know anyone missing? No? Reality sucks doesn’t it? Like the reality that Israel and Palestine will never agree to anything.
You should read my Facebook post, Darrell. It’s pretty simple:
Matthew 24: 42-44
“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
“But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.”
That being said about the rapture – yeah, you’re right. Israel and Palestine remain in conflict. Until one is subject to the other, I’m not sure there will be peace.
LD,
The Palestinians can live within whatever new borders are not negotiated. That territory won’t encompass the full pre-1967 Jordanian-claimed portion.
Mr. Cohen,
I am gratified to learn your relatives were alert enough to see the developing trouble and do something about it to save themselves.
I wonder, how would you, two generations later, characterize the conditions in the U.S. as they relate to the advancing security / surveillance state, warrantless searches, naked body scanners, secret FISA courts, loss of fourth amendment protections, etc? This is not a rhetorical question.
I’d be happy to provide examples of such if you really need them.
One point that is not being mentioned is that the original Palestinian Mandate included Jordan. There has never, in the history of the world, been a country named “Palestine”. That is a Roman name given to the territory after Rome defeated the Jews 2000 years ago and sent them into exile. Prior to 1967, there was no such thing as a Palestinian Arab. There is no history of any such people pre-1967. They were created as a weapon against Israel; they have no independent existence.
I forgot to add that Jordan, just a few miles away from Israel, has millions of “Palestinian” Arabs in its population. If Jordan had been named “Palestine”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Greetings from Ashalnd, KY on my way to St. Louis. This thread is so far down the post I doubt anyone will read it. But my, I can’t believe I am in agreement with Little David, not once but twice. The big news here today is that a couple with children from Atlanta was driving through this god-forsaken town to stop by a shopping center and when the family embarked from the car, a three-year-old boy pulled his daddy’s pistol from under the driver’s seat and pulled the trigger and shot himself in the head. Got to love all you 2nd amendmend people. Mommy was there too, and big sister.
2nd, with regard to Israel. I am stunned that nobody seems to be able to hold a credible converstation on this topic without making it into “if you are a Christian you will do anything for Israel.” There are ver serious historical and political issues here that too many on this list simply want to gloss over as being “anti-Christian” and therefore “not a good Republican.” You better get used to some serious backlash on that. The world did not come to an today, in case you did’t notice. The world doesn’t stop spinning because some religious kook says it will.
“the Son of man cometh.”
Well there you see, that’s part of the whole problem. There is no Son of man. He’s an invention of prophetic frauds and money changers who would profit from the death and control of ignorant rubes. But rest assured, when the Son of God finally shows up, there’s going to be hell to pay.
I didn’t plan on it, but had it happened, I would have been screaming Halleluiah. I would have thrown myself prostrate before him and asked if I was being too presumptive to think I might be allowed to lick the toe jam from his feet.
Until we overcome the need for religion in the world we will be using the powerful mythology to include and exclude each other from anything and everything. This is the one life we have and look what people spend their time on Earth doing. IMAGINE its really that simple. The land is Isreal’s God givin right REALLY I am under the impression that Isreal has always seen the entire country as all theirs not to be shared with anyone so how pure is Isreal in this whole matter?
and the people there will be like a thorn in your side look at the map of the palestinian state is that not like a thorn in israel’s side my jewish brothers don’t let this happen
It’s not clear why the U.S. has always kowtowed to the Jewish lobby to support the terrorist state of Israel. It should have nothing to do with Jews or Arabs (or Christians); it is about a people wrongly displaced by others who didn’t really study or understand the history of the region or the Jewish population.
It would’ve made more sense to plop Israel down on top of New Jersey.
If an american tourist goes to visit the middle east who is most likely to kidnap/murder that tourist? Would it be a jew, an arab or a terrorist country?
“Mutually agreed land swaps mean that the Palastinians will have to give up some land to Israel (of coarse, they will get land in return). If the Palastinians do not do that, then we have the 1967 borders. If you believe the Palastinians will do that, may I intrest you in the best fresh water you have ever tasted. It comes straight from the Dead Sea.
Also, the President also said that “Palastine should be bordered by Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and Israel should be bordered by Palastine”. As you can see on the Map, that would be a lot more than the pre-1967 borders.
The hard truth is this, The Palastinians and Arabs will not be satisfied with the pre-1967 borders. They will not rest until Israel has retreated back to their pre-1948 borders.
Israel shoud non give land.Mutuallstands for give the enemy the palestins and the muslums ezey way a attack.Don’t trust the talkers.
Israel should just go over their and bomb the shit out of them and take over that terrorist land that they call Palestine. It will never be settled until Palestine is eradicated. Fight fire with mother fucking fire. There will never be peace with those terrorist until they wipe Israel off the map, that’s their goal. So fuck’em. Don’t like what i have to say, oh well. i just have the balls to say what a lot of people think but don’t say because it’s too politically incorrect to think that.
Well, our Kenya born President hates Israel and USA as well.
What do you expect him to do but what comes naturally to him.
Besides this very much goes in accordance of the destruction of the Middle East orchestrated by our own State Department since Bush Days.
The Palistinian Terrorist are supplied arms by Iran, and the terrorist in Israel are supplied arms by the United States. How can these entities achive peace in this region is beyond me. Israel is as much of a terrorist in the region as is the palistinians, the only difference is that they are better armed.
Juan, if the israelis put down their arms there will be war, if the arabs occupying the east put down their arms there will be peace.
What Turbo said. Juan, before making defamatory statements like yours, you need to read some history and get the facts.
I’m pretty certain that Israel never “officially” accepted the 1947-48 partition, because it was attacked and lines were set after the 1948 War for Independence. I’m also pretty sure that in 1967 Israel was not technically attacked, though Egypt, Syria and Jordan were massing troops on the border. I believe Israel annexed the rest of Jerusalem soon after June 1967, and has signaled that Jerusalem and its eastern suburbs are a non-starter as far as a land give-back. Israel was attacked in 1973 – on Judaism’s holiest day – and initially retreated before making major pushes across the Sinai into Egypt proper and toward Damascus. That territory was promptly given back to negotiate an end to the 1973 war. Annexing villages where Arabs who are hostile to Israel reside is a big problem in a democratic state, but the concept of whom to negotiate with and relying on them to uphold any agreement has proven more complicated and risky than it would seem to outsiders.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.