The outrage over Obama's reference to 1967 lines in the May 19th speech isn't truly about "defensible" borders. It's about greed.
Purveyors of right-wing hasbara know Obama didn't demand that Israel return to the 1967 lines or try to impose any border. They know he said that any border would have to be negotiated, that security would be paramount. They know the only thing Obama said specifically about the border was that it would be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed land swaps.
It's that last clause that gives them heartburn.
They understand that "mutually agreed land swaps" means that Israel will have to pay in kind for what it takes in the West Bank. And they know that Israel doesn't actually have much land to pay with. If Israel wants peace, on terms that pretty much the whole world views as fair, it is going to have to make some tough choices. Choices Israel has forced on itself with its voracious appetite for settlements.
Veteran right-wing crusader Dore Gold addressed this recently in the Weekly Standard. He noted petulantly that, "...neither Resolution 242 nor any subsequent signed agreements with the Palestinians stipulated that Israel would have to pay for any West Bank land it would retain by handing over its own sovereign land in exchange."
Gold goes on to cite a recent article by Professor Gideon Biger, who stated that, "...it will be possible to transfer about 160 square kilometers, an area equivalent to 2.5 percent of the West Bank" to a future Palestinian state. Biger's numbers track with the solution proposed in the Geneva Initiative, in which unofficial Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed on a 2.2% land swap -- leaving 72% of settlers, and zero Palestinians, on the Israeli side of the new border.
Gold and his ilk reject such a limited annexation. They want Israel to keep far more of the West Bank - past negotiations indicate a desire to keep 6-12% of the land, at a minimum. And, it seems, they would readily forego a peace agreement to do so.
The world has never had much sympathy for Israeli settlement expansion. People understand that moving Israeli civilians into the West Bank is not about security. It is about ideology and politics. The settlement movement is animated, first and foremost, by a messianic ideology that finds little sympathy outside the circle of true believers; a movement whose followers regard holding onto the West Bank as more important than virtually any law or religious value.
At the same time, the settlement enterprise reflects the decades-old casual hubris of successive Israeli government policy in the West Bank, manifested in a total disregard for the long-term implications of decisions and in a readiness to allow political and economic expediency to substitute for responsible leadership. This is why today the overwhelming majority of settlers are ultra-Orthodox Jews and urban non-ideological Israelis -- populations that had no ideological motivation to move to the West Bank. Had Israel in the 1980s and 1990s chosen to invest in housing for them within the 1967 lines instead of building settlements, the issues of borders and land swaps would be far less difficult today. But throughout the 1980s and 1990s, political calculations led them to do otherwise.
Right-wingers deserve credit for understanding the implications of President Obama's words. Gold deserves special credit for actually addressing the issue honestly, instead of deploying the "defensible borders" red herring (though he can't resist raising it at the end of his article).
But most of the world, including American Jews and many or even most Israelis, recognizes that Palestinian readiness to accept Israel inside the 1967 lines, in 78% of what was historic Palestine, and to accept a Palestinian state in the remaining 22%, is an eminently reasonable basis for peace. Likewise, the Palestinians' apparent readiness to accept an agreement in which, in exchange for land swaps, Israel keeps many settlements -- unilaterally imposed Israeli facts on the ground that have long been a bone in the throat of the Palestinians -- also demonstrates extraordinary reasonableness.
Contrast this with an Israeli right-wing demand that Israel should be able to take whatever it wants in the West Bank without paying in kind, and it is easy to see why most right-wing pundits prefer to change the subject to "defensible borders." Greed is not pretty. And when greed is your starting point, it is hard to claim the moral high ground.
What Gold and his ilk neglect to mention is that if Israel gives in to greed, Israelis will end up paying a much higher price than they would under the principle of agreed land swaps. Such greed will cost Israel the thing it needs most today to ensure Israel's security and preserve its future as a Jewish state and a democracy: a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreement that results in two states, Israel and Palestine, living side within internationally recognized borders, in peace and with security.
Follow Lara Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Lara_APN
I have no intention to start a seminar on Jewish history, or on the legitimacy of our claim on this land. Enough books and articles have been written on the issue. You have already made up your mind, and so have I.
What does intrigue me is your selective choice of facts. According to you, Jewish presence on the land of Israel ceased to exist with the Babylonian invasion 597 BCE. Interestingly enough, you forget the Roman rule over the region, with Jews living here after returning from exile in Babylon.
There was always Jewish presence in the region, even after the failed Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire in 70 CE, and the forced exile of a large share of the population. So much so that at the end of the 19th century Jews were the majority in Jerusalem, and several other main cities.
But what is even more significant, is that throughout the centuries of forced exile, Jews have always vowed to return to our homeland, never giving up on our claim to the land.
Palestinians on the other hand, a people which no one heard of before the 1920s, are mostly a mix of new newcomers from N. Africa, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, who came to this region in the 20s and 30s due to the economic boom created by the Zionists.
In an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Zuhair Mohsen, a member of the PLO Executive Committee stated:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people…, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
Your account of your British citizenship is interesting. Tell me, how come Palestinians have been granted refugee status for endless generations? International laws on non Palestinians refugees grant such a status for three years, if I am not mistaken. Special rules have been made for Palestinians. I wonder why.
By the way, going back to the original issue of defensible borders, we would not have made it in the 1973 war, which took us by surprise, if we were standing on the 67 lines.
I think we are all done exchanging opinions. Bye.
In 1967 the then Israeli PM Levi Eshkol sought legal advise on the status of the captured territories from the states in house council Theodor Meron ( Later Justice Meron of international court of justice in the Hague)
The legal opinion, marked “Top Secret” and “Extremely Urgent” reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author’s summary, “that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
Mr. Meron took note of Israel’s diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not “normal” occupied territory, because the land’s status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.
But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing “intent to annex the West Bank to Israel.” The second was legal, he wrote: “In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory.” For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.
The settlements in occupied territories was called illegal by Israels own council and they were always intended as a land grab, Israel should not be permitted to keep them.”
At the time that Israel launched its attack against Egypt, the Egyptian foreign minister was on his way to Washington for talks. Having informed the State Department that Egyptian plans had been called off and getting assurance from the State Department that no Israeli action was planned.
Your choice of interpretation of the issue, that it is about greed and not about defensible borders, is what you and your ilk would naturally choose.
We Israelis live in a neighborhood whose culture doesn't place much importance on signed agreements. When Arafat was criticized by Arabs and Muslims for having made concessions to Israel in the Oslo accords, he defended his actions by comparing them to those of Muhammad in a similar circumstance: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca." According to Muhammad, treaties should be reached when convenient, and broken when they cease having an advantage. This is fundamental to Islamic culture.
When we say we need defensible borders, we mean exactly that. And if we need to annex territories that have never belonged to a sovereign Palestinian state, land that is presently under dispute, then that is what we should do – IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PEACE.
Otherwise, the whole exercise will end up in another war.
Shmuel
The Example of Egypt seems to show a neighbour who lived up to its obligations and more.
I find it somewhat incredulous that you can argue that the 1967 borders are indefensible since you have already successfully defended them. You do claim the 1967 war as a defensive action?
Claiming otherwise reminds me of a joke about a guy who jumps from the Empire State Building, when reaching the 50th floor is asked "how are you doing?" and replies "so far so good".
The 67 lines work as an aggression magnet. They make us so vulnerable that our enemies will always be tempted to try and break them again.
It is as a Roman military writer stated centuries ago -- "Si vis pacem, para bellum" -- If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
...means of earning a living to anti Israel zealot
As soon as Israel agreed to a two-state solution the Palestinian grievance shifted to the size of the land. Hanan Ashrawi asserts that the Palestinians can coexist with Israel, and at the same token argues that Israel is doing the Palestinians no favors by offering them a state in the disputed territories, it is asking them to accept a state in only 22% of Palestine while Israel keeps 78%. A convincing argument to once more to milk the Palestinian victim status.
Historic Palestine included not only Israel and the WB but also all of modern Jordan. It is Israel including the disputed territories that is only 22% of Palestine. If Israel were to pullout entirely from the WB and Gaza it would wind up with 18%. As far as Israel is concerned it is the Zionists who have made the real sacrifice by giving up 82% of the Land. By accepting the UN partition they were prepared to agree to only about 12% before the Arab states attacked and tried to destroy the budding state of Israel.
Reality Check: This is false. 80 percent of historic Palestine became Jordan in the early 1900's. Israel + West Bank + Gaza + East Jerususalem is the remaining 20 percent of historic Palestine.
Friedman says: "Likewise, the Palestinians' apparent readiness to accept an agreement in which, in exchange for land swaps, Israel keeps many settlements -- unilaterally imposed Israeli facts on the ground that have long been a bone in the throat of the Palestinians -- also demonstrates extraordinary reasonableness. "
Reality Check: Friedman carelessly (intentionally?) neglects to mention that Palestinians in their demands also insist on millions of Palestinians flooding into Israel and becoming citzens of Israel, which would make Jews a minority in Israel, which would make Israel no longer a Jewish state, which essentially destroys Israel for the Jewish people, who now would be minorities under a majority that absolutely hates them.
Friedman says: "Contrast this with an Israeli right-wing demand that Israel should be able to take whatever it wants in the West Bank without paying in kind"
Reality Check: This is false. Israel has only said they want to keep the major Jewish-populated areas, which pretty close together and a very tiny portion of the West Bank.
So you don't get 100% of the West Bank! Is that really so much worse than another decade of occupation? Really?
Reality Check: This is a lie. 80 percent of historic Palestine became Jordan. Israel + West Bank + Gaza + East Jerususalem is the remaining 20 percent of historic Palestine.