Obama proposes 1967 Palestine borders-Israeli PM rejects it

[Bluewolf]

Israeli PM Netanyahu rejects Obama '1967 borders' view

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected comments from US President Obama that a future Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders.

In a major speech to the State Department, Mr Obama said "mutually agreed swaps" would help create "a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel".

But Mr Netanyahu said those borders, which existed before the 1967 Middle East war, were "indefensible".

Mr Netanyahu is preparing to meet Mr Obama for talks at the White House.

An estimated 300,000 Israelis live in settlements built in the West Bank, which lies outside those borders.

The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Seeking solutions
In Thursday's speech on the future of US policy in the Middle East, Mr Obama said the basis of the peace negotiations was to create "a viable Palestine, and 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," he said.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states."

In a statement, Mr Netanyahu's office said he appreciated Mr Obama's "commitment to peace" but that for peace to endure, "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state".

The statement called on Mr Obama to reaffirm commitments he made to Israel in 2004.

"Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines," it said.

"Those commitments also ensure Israel's well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel."

The BBC's Wyre Davies in Jerusalem says that while Mr Netanyahu will be warmly welcomed in the US, he is coming under increasing international pressure to ease his objections to a Palestinian state following the unity deal signed between rival Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah earlier this month.

If the unity project holds, says our correspondent, Mr Netanyahu could find himself foundering while other countries embrace fresh Palestinian initiatives.

Israel's claim to being the only democratic state in the region has also been undermined by the dramatic developments of the Arab Spring anti-government uprisings, our correspondent adds.

The push for democracy began with the overthrowing of Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak was later toppled in Egypt, with demonstrators in Libya currently working to overthrow dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

Similar uprisings are also taking hold in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13465133

Posted without comment for now .

[SirNitram]

So.. He proposed more or less the same as the last two presidents.

Oh well. The pro-Israel lobby will go nuts. I think the only thing those professional complainers would like less is enforcing the legal act forming Israel(Because it also forms Palestine).

[doomboy536]

Hasn't this been suggested and rejected multiple times already?

[Straha]

No. Previous Presidents left the door open to Israel holding territory beyond the '67 borders, this is a clear departure from that path and calls on Israel giving up a lot of land that it feels it has a 'right' to.

[Sarevok]

Heh.

You did not have to post "...and Israeli PM rejects it" in the title. The answer was quite obvious. There is absolutely no hope of the political situation changing as long as Netanyahu is in power.

[Big Phil]

Why are the '67 borders such a sticking point? Why not insist on the '48 borders?

At this point in time, insisting Israel return to its pre-1967 borders seems like a non-starter. There are very few Israelis who will willingly give up the Golan Heights - giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was already a significant concession that hasn't really benefited Israel. Same with right of return - it's not going to happen, so as long as the Palestinians continue to insist on right of return, there's no point in having a conversation.

[doomboy536]

No. Previous Presidents left the door open to Israel holding territory beyond the '67 borders, this is a clear departure from that path and calls on Israel giving up a lot of land that it feels it has a 'right' to.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

As far as I know, the Israelis consider the Golan Heights to be extremely valuable and it doesn't seem likely that Israel will surrender them.

[Chirios]

Why are the '67 borders such a sticking point? Why not insist on the '48 borders?

At this point in time, insisting Israel return to its pre-1967 borders seems like a non-starter. There are very few Israelis who will willingly give up the Golan Heights - giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was already a significant concession that hasn't really benefited Israel. Same with right of return - it's not going to happen, so as long as the Palestinians continue to insist on right of return, there's no point in having a conversation.

To be fair, he didn't say that they should use the '67 borders, he said that the '67 borders should be a starting point. That suggests that they base the state around the '67 lines, with some room for manoeuvre.

Also, I'm a bit confused about something, the Israeli PM said that part of the reason he doesn't want to use the '67 borders is because of the settlements that have been put in the West Bank; but weren't those settlements built in violation of the previous agreement?

[Darksider]

Also, I'm a bit confused about something, the Israeli PM said that part of the reason he doesn't want to use the '67 borders is because of the settlements that have been put in the West Bank; but weren't those settlements built in violation of the previous agreement?

This assumes the current Israeli PM gives two shits about any "previous agreement." They've cracked down a bit on settlements that are "unauthorized," but on the whole have done little about what are essentially illegal squatters on Palestinian land.

[SirNitram]

1,500 more settlements recently, I heard.

Settlements are an issue that Israel doesn't seem to want to deal with, for whatever reason. That's gonna keep the cycle going.

[Chris OFarrell]

The biggest problem as always is that there is no strong Israeli Government. They are always horribly fragile coalitions with a mix of strong and vocal minority group in them who represent the 'settlers' and will rant, rave, threaten to bring down the Government, anything that's needed if any PM is seriously looking at something that would screw the Settlers on the occupied land. They have played this game well for decades, while breeding and building as fast as they possibly can, entrenching themselves on all the best land to the point that its simply going to be impossible to come up with an equitable solution for both parties.

Of course, said right wing nut cases don't WANT an equitable solution, they want Lebensraum at the cost of the Palestinians. These people are not the whole of Israel, and I daresay not a majority by any means, but they have ever so carefully put themselves into the key-lock political power position so no matter what Obama says, and even no matter who the PM is, there just will never be any real traction on this.

Well at least until demographic trends play out to the inevitable endgame over the long term unless Israel decides to go full Apartheid...

[Darksider]

Question. If Israel does give up any pretense of being a representative government when and if the Arabs achieve a majority population, (or at least enough of a population percentage to ensure full equality) can we expect a change in U.S. attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[Shroom Man 777]

Nope. The US already supports all sorts of non-representative governments where the minority rule over the majority. This just means that Israel is following peer pressure so it can be the popular girl in the America's Super Best Friends Forever Club.

[bobalot]

Why are the '67 borders such a sticking point? Why not insist on the '48 borders?

At this point in time, insisting Israel return to its pre-1967 borders seems like a non-starter. There are very few Israelis who will willingly give up the Golan Heights - giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was already a significant concession that hasn't really benefited Israel.

1. Israel hasn't given up the West Bank, they are still building even more settlements.
2. Isn't the Golan Heights a dispute with Syria? I don't think it's relevant to the Palestinian issue.

I'm sick and tired of hearing on what Israel feels entitled to. They have no right to the land outside the 1967 borders. Full stop. By letting them keep the land they squatting it just sets a precedent that colonialism and ethnic cleansing are okay.

America sends Israel a significant amount of financial/military aid. It has the power to force the issue if they really wanted.

[Zaune]

Nope. The US already supports all sorts of non-representative governments where the minority rule over the majority. This just means that Israel is following peer pressure so it can be the popular girl in the America's Super Best Friends Forever Club.

I'm not so sure. It's been possible to give Israel preferential treatment because they're at least paying lip-service to representative democracy, unlike almost all their immediate neighbours. If they go down that path they'll be thrown under a bus the same way Saddam or Mubarak were.

Unfortunately, Israel has a strong enough economy that the US cutting them loose won't cause their military any insurmountable problems, and Libya-style outside intervention would be extremely dangerous.

[Shroom Man 777]

You mean, if they go down that path they'll be riding the same bus Abdullah or Sheikh Mohammed are in.

[Zaune]

Maybe. But politicians, or at least successful politicians, are nothing if not consistent in one area; they will do whatever will win them the most votes. Israel doesn't produce enough oil to contribute to keeping the "cheap gas is a Constitutional right!" brigade happy, but as long as it's still possible to plausibly spin them as the guys in white hats -or at least the marginally paler shade of grey- then bankrolling them looks good in the media.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

The biggest problem as always is that there is no strong Israeli Government. They are always horribly fragile coalitions with a mix of strong and vocal minority group in them who represent the 'settlers' and will rant, rave, threaten to bring down the Government, anything that's needed if any PM is seriously looking at something that would screw the Settlers on the occupied land. They have played this game well for decades, while breeding and building as fast as they possibly can, entrenching themselves on all the best land to the point that its simply going to be impossible to come up with an equitable solution for both parties.

Of course, said right wing nut cases don't WANT an equitable solution, they want Lebensraum at the cost of the Palestinians. These people are not the whole of Israel, and I daresay not a majority by any means, but they have ever so carefully put themselves into the key-lock political power position so no matter what Obama says, and even no matter who the PM is, there just will never be any real traction on this.

Well at least until demographic trends play out to the inevitable endgame over the long term unless Israel decides to go full Apartheid...

It's an even bigger issue because any solution that's likely to actually work long term is likely to involve an increase in attacks on Israel, since the Palestinians wouldn't be under IDF occupation any more, and would have greater access to outside sources of weapons. It doesn't help an Israeli government if a situation which would lead to the grandchildren of current Palestinians being happy, productive neighbours with Israel led, at that moment in time, to a constant barrage of rocket attacks and the security situation seemed worse than when the Occupied Territories were still occupied.

[SirNitram]

Or, in short, the violent occupation is justified by the violence which would occour if we stopped occupying.

[Big Phil]

Why are the '67 borders such a sticking point? Why not insist on the '48 borders?

At this point in time, insisting Israel return to its pre-1967 borders seems like a non-starter. There are very few Israelis who will willingly give up the Golan Heights - giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was already a significant concession that hasn't really benefited Israel.

1. Israel hasn't given up the West Bank, they are still building even more settlements.
2. Isn't the Golan Heights a dispute with Syria? I don't think it's relevant to the Palestinian issue.

I'm sick and tired of hearing on what Israel feels entitled to. They have no right to the land outside the 1967 borders. Full stop. By letting them keep the land they squatting it just sets a precedent that colonialism and ethnic cleansing are okay.

Why do they have a right to the 1967 borders? Why not force them back to the 1948 borders?

[cosmicalstorm]

I think its pretty obvious that Israel will not do any of those nice things that people want them to do.
And they obviously wont be overrun militarily (nuclear weapons and all that).
And even in the unlikely scenario that they loose support from the US and Europe it still seems they can do good business with China and other countries like that.

So what do you people think that Israel will realistically do over the next twenty years? More settlements? Crazier politicians? Another Hezbollah duel?

[D.Turtle]

Honestly? I expect absolutely nothing of consequence to happen.

There simply isn't enough interest to force a decision to be made one way or another, so the status quo will more or less continue. Israel can well live with the status quo and take the few lumps of outrage every now and then. Any agreement that can happen will be at the expense of the Israelis, so they will continue to act like douchebags.

[Rogue 9]

Why are the '67 borders such a sticking point? Why not insist on the '48 borders?

At this point in time, insisting Israel return to its pre-1967 borders seems like a non-starter. There are very few Israelis who will willingly give up the Golan Heights - giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was already a significant concession that hasn't really benefited Israel.

1. Israel hasn't given up the West Bank, they are still building even more settlements.
2. Isn't the Golan Heights a dispute with Syria? I don't think it's relevant to the Palestinian issue.

I'm sick and tired of hearing on what Israel feels entitled to. They have no right to the land outside the 1967 borders. Full stop. By letting them keep the land they squatting it just sets a precedent that colonialism and ethnic cleansing are okay.

Why do they have a right to the 1967 borders? Why not force them back to the 1948 borders?

Because those borders look like this:



And as a direct cause of that, Israel was immensely vulnerable to external attack - a fact which the surrounding Arab nations recognized and immediately attempted to take advantage of, losing the land through every fault of their own - and seizing portions of the nascent Palestinian state for their own rather than allowing their independence, to boot, showing that had the 1948 war gone the other way, there would likely still have been no Palestinian state.

Besides, what of Jerusalem? Would the UN resume administration of it, even though none of the parties involved would consent to such a thing?

Also, good luck "forcing" Israel into anything. Like it or not, they are a militarily powerful state, that only the United States has the capability to reliably defeat in its current form, and that only with unacceptable losses.

[fgalkin]

Here's a video explaining why Israel considers the 1967 borders "indefensible" and will likely reject all calls for them to retreat to them



Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

Nope. The US already supports all sorts of non-representative governments where the minority rule over the majority. This just means that Israel is following peer pressure so it can be the popular girl in the America's Super Best Friends Forever Club.

Heh.

Well, Israel is a special case because the US does more for them, in the US's eyes, than they do for the US. Israel has remained a US client state for reasons that have a lot to do with American internal politics, and outright apartheid in Israel would screw up those political forces enough that things would change a bit.

Most undemocratic American client states get support because the American people do not, when you get right down to it, give a fuck what happens in those countries. Powerful interests do, and dictatorship secures those interests.

But Israel gets support because the American people do, when you get right down to it, give a fuck what happens there. This creates a slightly different situation.

2. Isn't the Golan Heights a dispute with Syria? I don't think it's relevant to the Palestinian issue.

I'm sick and tired of hearing on what Israel feels entitled to. They have no right to the land outside the 1967 borders...

The big problem with the Golan Heights is that as long as they're held by someone hostile to Israel, that someone can choke off important parts of Israel's water supply, and position artillery to bombard large parts of the country's settled areas.

Israel places a very high value on the Golan Heights for this reason, regardless of whether they have any moral right to own it or not. It's strategic terrain for them; even if no one is talking about their right to live there, giving it up would still make them nervous.

That doesn't mean they are righteous to say so- but it is a serious problem; they'd have to deal with real consequences if they gave up the Golan Heights.