Why the 1967 borders are not safe for Israel (Introduction)
By D.J. McGuire | Saturday, May 21st, 2011 | History, International
Israel has been in its current form (the parliamentary republic) since 1948. From roughly that time until 1967, it held certain borders – borders to which President Obama basically demanded she revert. That demand has caused great anger in Israel and among her strongest supporters here, which has caused confusion with everyone else.
This confusion is based on several assumptions imposed by recent history: namely the security of an alliance with the United States, a continuous claim to a Palestinian “homeland”, and relatively stable views from Israel’s largely Muslim neighbors. In fact, during the critical yet largely ignored period in Israel’s history (the first two decades), none of these were completely true – and for a time, none of them were true at all.
This series of posts will work forward from Israel’s re-founding (1948) to explain why the pre-1967 borders were anything but stable in the eyes of the Middle Eastern powers of that time, and how events since then have clouded this critical historical reality.
This, of course, is the introduction. The parts will be forthcoming.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
Comments
10 Responses to "Why the 1967 borders are not safe for Israel (Introduction)"
Looking forward to this, D.J.
do these two statements seem equivalent to you:
———————————————
There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.
Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides…While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.
———————————————
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
———————————————
Amit,
I believe they are roughly equivalent and I can identify where each came from. The 1st came from President George Dubyah Bush and the 2nd from President Obama.
However some might say there is a subtle greater reference for to the need for modifications to the 1949 Armistice Lines (synonymous with 1967 lines).
This is just like the two sides can read UN Resolution 242 and believe it says two different things just because the word “the” is not included before the word “territories” in the statement calling for: “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”
One state, 2011 borders or else.. Two state solution is non workable among enemies.
Turbo,
OK, then what are your plans for what Israel should do with the more than 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank? What plan can you (and Israel) present that you think is an acceptable alternative to Two Lands for Two Peoples? Please be specific.
I like Turbo’s idea. There’s 1.2M Arabs happily living in Israel now, I wonder how many Israeli Jews are living in Palestine. While Arab’s make up 16% of Israeli’s population, most Arab’s support Israeli way of life.
There are 47 Muslim countries who want land from the only Jewish settlement in the world. Most of whom don’t even recongize Israel exists.
Now that Mexican’s are the majority population of Texas, maybe they should establish their own nation. The nation of Texas, populated by Mexicans.
Wish we could do it with California.
LD, let them become citizens of Israel proper. They will have more rights than any other arabs living in arab lands, they will have a higher standard of living than most arabs and they will either learn to coexist in the land of milk and honey or they will die.
Turbo,
That is an unacceptable solution according to the Israeli right wing and most Israelis in general. This solution would end up a Muslim dominate population in Israel over time.
Oh really? Can you point to any real life models of a similar situation LD where a 2 state solution worked (south africa)? The one state solution I refer to is not the one you seem to assume but a pragmatic approach to one state.. two territories, both under Israeli state control. Until and unless the displaced Jordanians, egyptians (so called Palestinians) and others living among them can decide they can live as peaceful neighbors, nothing else short of continuing bloodshed will result. Some liberals call this unfair powersharing, apartied or racism while many pragmatic jews who have had their asses kicked and slaughtered all over the earth call it cultural survival.. the last land on earth that jews call their own is the last stand and it’s surrounded by millions of square miles of land that coercive muslims call their own.. and in all fairness muslims have a right to it today. [I cannot think of one conservative who refers to a one state workable solution as apartied but I bet that after this post a few may make themselves known.]
The region has unique features and, in spite of the patterns of recorded history, it never repeats itself the same way every time. Palestinians and Israelis are incapable of rewriting themselves a post UK colonial empire future that gives everyone a chance at equality and a life worth living in two, democratic states because one of them is undemocratic and does not seek to live side by side with or within a democracy.
So, you have a bible thumping life loving positive solution seeking israel, a melting pot of mid eastern culture, neighboring with a satan spawning pa territory.. what say you again LD?
Turbo,
My biggest point of contention is that until a peace agreement is reached, settlement expansion should be stopped. The settlements are illegal and that does not come from the Bible, it comes from the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49.
I am not saying that a peace agreement needs to be reached overnight, only that the settlements should stop expanding with or without an agreement. Certainly the Palestinians (particularly Hamas) have some obligations to live up before a peace agreement can be reached.
As for there never having been a Palestine, why was the newspaper now known as the Jerusalem Post first established as the Palestine Post back in 1932?
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.