Netanyahu: Israel Will Never Withdraw from Occupied Territories

Netanyahu says Israel will never withdraw to 1967 borders.

It is so annoying that the U.S. corporate media decides that big news doesn't exist and non-news is big news. The New York Times, for example, has gone six days without any news from Iraq (where the U.S. is spending 10 billion dollars a month). But more immediately, the coverage this week about Israel and Palestine includes an article about the start of former Israeli President Ehud Olmert's corruption trial, but not even a reference to current Premier Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that Israel will never withdraw to the 1967 borders. In fact, I could only find a report of the interview in the Turkish Weekly.

Recall what Obama said after his meeting with Netanyahu in Washington: that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestine crisis must include "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967." This has been broadly interpreted as a call by the U.S. for Israel to ultimately withdraw from the occupied territories.

In response to this, Netanyahu told Haaretz:

"The things he [Obama] said about the occupation are not new. He also said them in Cairo, and in fact that is the formula adopted by the road map and it does not say we have to go back to the 1967 borders.

"This is the formula adopted by [Israeli] governments before the one I head, which did not agree to go back to the 1967 borders. We certainly would [also] not agree to that. In the matter of the settlements he also said nothing new. These disagreements should not prevent the beginning of the process which, among other things if it is successful, will also decide this issue."

This is convoluted, but very clear: Neither the earlier Israeli governments, nor Netanyahu would ever agree "to go back to the 1967 borders." They are going to keep all or part of the land they seized, despite the world consensus that this seizure, occupation, and ethnic cleansing was illegal and immoral, and an ongoing devastation to the lives of Palestinians.

It is simply staggering that both the U.S. government and the U.S. media simply ignores these provocative and incendiary commitments, while continuing to condemn any little provocative statement by any Palestinian political grouping.

In some sense, this is a litmus test for the Obama administration. With Netanyahu drawing a line in the sand, will Obama do something to challenge this? Or will he tacitly or explicitly support an Israeli policy that guarantees years or even decades of further misery, violence, and instability.

I am afraid to reach the obvious conclusion suggested by the deafening silence in Washington and in the U.S. corporate media.

 

Comments

[EastAsia]

"the world consensus that this seizure, occupation, and ethnic cleansing was illegal and immoral"

There used to be a "world consensus" that the earth is flat. Consensus does not make something illegal. If you think that there is some "Law" that is being violated have the decency to tell us which one. The West Bank, in 1967 and now, was not legally part of any other country than Israel, and the Jews have treaty rights to Palestine through the Palestine Mandate and other international treaties.

The 1947 Partition was not a treaty obligation but a "Recommendation" of the General Assembly that was rejected by the Arabs, so the recommendation isn't binding on anyone.

Jews have national rights to the entire West Bank under international law. This is from the Resolution of San Remo of 1920. See the resolution at http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/infocenter/Heb/SamRemoRes.html

[Fein]

Please go ahead and state the obvious conclusion as to the why of the 'deafening silence in the media.'

It's because the media, as well as most of our politicians are bought and paid for by the Military Industrialists, (as well as Israeli sycophants) who lust after the monetary advantages of Israel's warmongery.

[beacon77]

I don't support Netanyahu and rarely agree with him, but that doesn't make it ok to distort what he says. This article is misleading. Not withdrawing to the 1967 borders does NOT mean not withdrawing from the West Bank at all. It means that there will be land swaps.

[newyorkid]

This is why there will never be peace.

[rafstar]

I was reading a Terrance Real description of boys being emotionally degraded by masculine expectations and yet having their egos hyper-inflated as a result of the same. It seems to me that both Israelis and Palestinians have the same dual nature; Israelis are victims with their finger square on the trigger and the Palestinians are victims with the moral and practical support of more than a billion coreligionists. Both of these "strengths" are a big sticks that need to be weaned for the emergence of peace.

But both can only do so in part, before castrating themselves.

Israel may return 90% of the West Bank, but they will never give back all of '67 captured land because they want this, and have no illusion about winning the good will of the Arab world. After the intifadas and the pullouts of the last decade, there is no gesture any Arab can make to change this.

Palestinians may be able to let go partially too... of that 10%, of their refugees, of a military and other such masculine makings of a nation.

With these traumas to both sides, there is a realistic process for peace.

[worldb]

the world maps tell the real story...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html

[Macready]

Bravo . . thank you for being so honest Michael Schwartz. . . great article . . . it is a sick sad state of affairs . . . I too want to see action from Obama on this . . . the only ways to get israel to withdraw to its pre-war 1967 boundaries . . are UN sanctions, trade embargoes and an end to all US funding . . . but the West and the US and the MSM are all complicit in silence and like you I fear " he will tacitly or explicitly support an Israeli policy that guarantees years or even decades of further misery, violence, and instabilit­y."

[MosheDayanHero]

Quote form blog post "Netanyahu says Israel will never withdraw to 1967 borders."
Obviously this wasn't good enough. So power-that- be decided to go with fraudulent headline:" Netanyahu: Israel Will Never Withdraw from Occupied Territories"
Shame.

[jamilk99]

If they won't withdraw to the 1967 borders, then that means they won't withdraw from the Occupied Territories.

[Ithamer]

Good,
The decent people of the World can shed there embarrassment about a rouge people and deal with them as they should have decades ago.
No contact with the rest of the World, seize all their assets, no support from the diaspora, no international flights, no trade, naval blockade, no participation in the financial world,The list is endless and the bullies would soon be whimpering and grovelling and we would be a step closer to removing the cancer created after the second world war.

[MosheDayanHero]

rouge people?
I don't think anyone uses rouge anymore. You're dating yourself. LOL

[Macready]

totally agree with you Ithamer . . . these actions must be taken to ensure world peace . . . no rogue state is worth the loss of some many lives

[Lon]

I tend to disagree with Netanyahu about just about everything, but this comment by him does not seem to be particularly newsworthy. Even the Geneva accords, the deal worked out by peace minded people on both sides but without the power to implement, does not call for a return to the 1967 borders. It envisions a swap of some territory to acknowledge growth since 1967.

Netanyahu probably has in mind something less fair, that is retaining some territory without a swap, but the other side still claims it will never recognize Israel's right to exist. These are not unreasonable pre-negotiation claims. They are not helpful, but they are not devastating either.

A deal that is acceptable to the Palestinian leadership (which would have to include the people in Gaza to be taken seriously) would be an end to the 1967 occupation even if it did not involve a return to the 1967 borders. Netanyahu is right about that point. In calling for the end of the occupation the US does not, and should not, care about the exact contours of what the resulting peace looks like. We should care (but don't always) that it is something that could legitimately be called a fair peace. But that is a different issue.

[precaffeinated]

Well, Duh, this line is also in the Knesset platform: no Palestinian state west of the Jordan river (look on a map).

The State Department presumably has plenty of people who can Google these things and spend time reading foreign policy magazines and parsing statements too, so they know this too.

The only dummies, I hate to say, are the American public -- for believing our own government's lies that the United States is attempting to be an honest brokers in this dispute.

Like hell.

[FearlessFreep]

In other words, Israel won't withdraw until it's defeated.

[mommadona]

So, can we finally call Netanyahu et al exactly what they are?

RWNJ administration onna "mission from Gawd" - a danger to the U.S. with our support of such and should be shunned.