Opinion
Fallacy of pre-1967 borders
Riccardo Dugulin
Published: 06.01.13, 10:22
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
74 Talkbacks for this article
1. Quite good but some errors
Ferdinand ,   France & Israel   (01.06.13)
In general, I think this article is good and it makes several relevant points. There are some mistakes in it. These are so basic mistakes that I am surprised the author makes them. 1. President Obama never said that Israel must return to the 67 borders. He said the 67 borders with land swaps. That is a rather substantial difference. 2. I agree with the author about the military dictatorial rule of Egypt and Jordan in the period 1948-1967. However, that is rather irrelevant. It was not the Palestinians' fault, and nothing they should be punished for. 3. What the author doesn't discuss is how the future borders should look. One thing is certain. Whoever lives within Israel's borders will need to be offered Israeli citizenship, if Israel is not to violate the Geneva convention and become a pariah state in the eyes of the world. That is something all Israeli politicians agree on, from Habayit Hayehudah on the right to Meretz on the left. So if Israel want to remain a Jewish state, it is not in Israel's interest to annex large Palestinian areas.
2. At last somebody who knows what the truth is (end)
pcnetdoc ,   Israel   (01.06.13)
3. 67 BORDERS
H ROSEN ,   PA USA   (01.06.13)
THE CURRENT MANTRA IS PRE 67 BORDERS WITH SWAPS..WHAT THE HELL ARE SWAPS?? AND WHY SHOULD ISRAEL SWAP ANY GAINS MADE WHEN THREATENED OR ATTACKED ...THIS IS A GOOD ARTICLE AND EVERYONE INCLUDING THE U S STATE DEPT SHOULD FACE REALITY. AND NOW THAT THE PALESTINIANS HAVE SOME SORT OF QUASI STATE AND MAY JOIN WITH HAMAS I THINK LIKUD CAN NOW ABANDON ANY PEACE TALKS FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE ...SOMETHING THEY SECRETLY MADE THEM HAPPY IN THE FIRST PLACE
4. Agree with the author...
Beary White ,   Norway   (01.06.13)
...and would like to put a question onto mr Obama..is it because he is muslimized enough to state that negotiations should be base on -67 borders, which actually are armistic lines? Does he love the sound of fridays prayers so much to make that statment?
5. Riccardo, I fully agree with your lucid article
Yosi ,   Kikar Hamedina   (01.06.13)
Your logic and analysis is right and leads to the right conclusion. Suppose Israel agrees dueObama's ignorance of the conflict's history, and agrees to pre 67, he will never guarantee that the Arab countries and mobs would not attack Israel once it retires to the pre-67 borders. So it will be ; "Kosot Ruach le Met".
6. Excellent article.
bad Assed Jew ,   United States   (01.06.13)
Reality is that the pals are a failed notion that isn't going anywhere. Israel has won every war that the same Arabs still try and dictate from afar and with such ridiculous 'agreements' as the "Saudi peace Plan" which I wouldn't use under my cat's box for it's so full of holes and prior use.
7. # 1 It isn't up to obama or you or any
bad Assed Jew ,   United States   (01.06.13)
one else to dictate to Israel what she may or may not do. Annexation of all of Israel will happen. Israel has no obligation to offer any pal citizenship into Israel. What you or I think is of no matter. Israel will reamin Jewish she alone will dictate the use of her land for her own interests. As for Israel being a 'pariah state' we could care less what non Jews think or say. It isn't their land.
8. Ignoring Historical Realities?
jj   (01.06.13)
isn't this what the settlers in the West Bank are doing as a matter of policy? remember, before the response is "but the torah says blah blah blah". This "may be read as an implicit way of negating reality by those who have not been favored by it." usual hypocritical garbage.
9. We tried the !967 Lines until 1967
Alfredo ,   Raanana   (01.06.13)
They did not work! What we have today is a result of that.. We need to try something new like ... Jordan is Palestine.
10. Its too late - over 600,000 Jews live in Yesha
Tomer ,   Herzeliya   (01.06.13)
The reality of Ariel, Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion and Modiin Illit block the creation of a 22nd Arab state in these areas. The Arabs have missed the bus
11. There are ***NO*** pre 1967 borders in the
Chris Rettenmoser ,   Bayerisch Gmain Germ   (01.06.13)
sense of the green line...the green line had been an armistice line and NOTHING else !
12. Borders
graczek ,   Maryland, USA   (01.06.13)
Any talk about borders, whether 1967 or whatever, is a waste of time and breath. There can be only one state. That state will be Palestine, and its governance will be Muslim with a Christian presence. That, too, will be the final outcome of the Palestine conflict; this is foreordained.
13. '67 boarders is a lie, they mean the '48 armistice line
Eric ,   Tel Aviv & NY   (01.06.13)
If you are going to try to bring rational and historical truth to this debate (almost impossible in a situation where Israel is wrong until proven wrong) then you need to acknowledge that the call for the June '67 line is really a call for the '48 armistice line. It ignores 2 decades of ethnic cleansing and destruction of evidence that Jews had lived there continually for 3500 years. In fact if you want to say that the pre-67 lines belong to the Palestinians then you are actually saying that it belongs to the Jews born under the British Mandate as they ones considered Palestinians at that time.
14. Jerusalem
Sherlock Holmes ,   London England   (01.06.13)
There is a similar change behind the scenes regarding Jerusalem. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama as well as most other US Senators are on record saying Jerusalem is the united capital of Israel and should never agin be divided -- and that the US Embassy should be in Jerusalem. Yet at some point we were suddenly told Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine -- although at no point in history has Jerusalem had that role. The UN resolution drafted by the British speaks of agreed borders, not of the 1967 borders, but suddenly we are told the state should have the 1967 borders with a few land swaps. Who is moving the goalposts?
15. #1 There's a difference between us.
Ferdinand ,   France & Israel   (01.06.13)
Just like you, I want Israel to be a Jewish state, that's where we agree. The difference is that I want Israel to be both Jewish and democratic, while you only care about the Jewish part and ignore the democratic part. A democratic state cannot annex territory and deny its inhabitants citizenship. While some states have done so throughout history, none of those states have been democratic. As I wrote a few days ago, your opinions are typical for those who do not live in Israel and would not be affected by its demise. For those of us who truly care for Israel, there is no giving up Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and that means Israel cannot annex areas with large non-Jewish populations. It's really as simple as that.
16. graczec
aaron ,   toronto,canada   (01.06.13)
Graczec,we told you before,as soon as you get up in the morning TAKE YOUR STUPID PILLS.
17. borders
linda ,   paris, france   (01.06.13)
I'd love to see that article published in a French newspaper like "Le Monde"
18. The article ignores the Oslo Accords
Nick ,   London, UK   (01.06.13)
The argument focuses upon the 'bewilderment' caused by the conduct of the international community in recognising 1967 borders (something consistently enforced since SC Resolution 242). However it completely ignores how Israel agreed to base border negotiations on Resolution 242 ie. pre-Six Day War lines with some adjustments. How does the author reconcile Israel's express agreement in the 1990s with the rest of his article?
19. #3 I totally with you! Israel knows what's best for her.
Rachel   (01.06.13)
20. to #1 palastinians started 1948 war, from the
ghostq   (01.06.13)
village Faja, they opened fire on bus inside the bus were civilians. go check your facts so its pali fault, as for land swamp for 64 and return to 64 line is the same thing. 64 is fictional line since no gov marked it only milliteary wise. as for your number 3 meretz is extream socialist left wing none wants extream way this time or day.
21. #18 UNSC 242 precludes a Palestinian State
Eric ,   Tel Aviv & NY   (01.06.13)
UNSC 242 specifically speaks of returning land captured in '67, so as there was no Palestine in '67, thus 242 precludes a Palestinian State as it would require Israel to give the land to Jordan or Egypt, both of whom occupied it in '48.
22. To No. 7.
Bertram ,   London, UK   (01.06.13)
"Annexation of all of Israel will happen". No doubt this is the dream of Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.
23. So what does the author suggest?
Ay ,   USA   (01.06.13)
Permanent occupation without rights? Transfer to Jordan? Decreasing the Palestinian state to Area A? One state? Exactly what is the alternative offered?
24. I agree - Excellent points # 4 & # 7
Rachel   (01.06.13)
25. Funny thing, borders
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (01.06.13)
They are invariably set as an outcome of war. Historically, they favor the DEFENDER (Israel) and not the AGGRESSOR (assorted Arab states). They are not moved and adjusted to accommodate a radical group of TERRORISTS (that would be the "Palestinians") who happened to be strongly allied with the AGGRESSOR. It really doesn't get much more simple than that. Any country that tries to impose its political will upon Israel will be in for a very nasty surprise indeed. Israel has made enough territorial concessions -- Sinai (three times); Gaza. We have seen the outcome of that. Israel will not cede a single additional millimeter of land, and the international community is just going to have to get used to that. Much as it pains them that Israel not only exists, but thrives.
26. #12 Graczek - I admire your bravery
BEN JABO (MACHAL) ,   ISRAEL   (01.06.13)
How about leaving the USA and coming here to display it, in person?
27. #20 Fundamental mistake
Ferdinand ,   France & Israel   (01.06.13)
Ghostq, you make the most common and most repeated mistake in these eternal discussions when you try to argue that "the Palestinians started it" and thus they don't have any rights. Speaking from a legal perspective, that position is bogus. A country is not allowed to occupy territory even in a defensive war. Of course the Arabs started the war in 1948 (and of course it was stupid of them) but that doesn't really change anything. It gave Israel every right to defend itself, but not the right to more than 20 years later occupy land. We no longer live in the 18th century when countries could occupy land as they pleased. Today an occupation is always legally wrong, both in an offensive and in a defensive war.
28. 67 borders??? it is a delution to think
Rachel   (01.06.13)
that aggressor Arabs will get any territory back from defender Israel . If Arabs want what the territory they lost, then they shouldn't have attacked Israel in the first place. What we have today is a result of all the past wars. Any arabs in Israel not loyal or refuse to enroll in the IDF, should return to Jordan or Egypt where they came from. These 2 countries (not Israel) have the responsibilities to give them their once revoked citizenship back.
29. Shalom
Rachel   (01.06.13)
"Obama to name former Hagel for defense secretary" Ynet. What? This man is anti-Semitic and it would be stupid to give him such an important position !
30. It's a clear "Palestinian" attempt to destroy Israel.
Chaim ,   Israel   (01.06.13)
Any child, capable of reading a map, can see that Israel could not survive a decade if we are lunatic enough to abandon our ancestral heartland of Judea and Samaria. Judea and Samaria rightfully belong to Israel. Judea and Samaria make Israel viable. The "Palestinian" demand is a clear attempt to destroy Israel.
Next talkbacks
Back to article