37. #35 You ignore both context and history post-1949.
Roman , |
Lod, Israel |
|
(08.14.09) |
The original 1949 Armistice agreements had a major demand from the Arab states participating, as part of the larger Arab League policy - Israel was a conquest waiting to happen, it did not actually exist, and hence its border would be recognized. Ever. It wasn't merely the borders of Gaza and the West Bank, but all the borders of Israel, at all sides. That was then.
Since then, some time passed. Egypt lost control of Gaza, and Jordan of the West Bank, during the Six Day War - and later, when signing peace agreements, they used the 1949 Armistice Line as the basis for the final, de jure border with Israel, basing this on the fact that the de facto border before the Six Day War had in fact been this line - the exceptions were Gaza and the West Bank, which both countries gave up control of - essentially saying "they (the Palestinians) are now your problems, not ours".
The Armistice Line is further defined as the de-facto border between Israel and Lebanon, as the future border that Syria demands, and is the accepted line internationally - the UN's reservation post-1949 was the control the organization was supposed to hold over Jerusalem, and even that particular pipe dream disappeared in the mists of time.
So before reading an agreement, check its context and its evolution over time.
|