Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[Scott]

The correct spelling of the PM name is Benjamin Netanyahu, not ..yahoo,

which could be seen as inflammatory. Let's use the generally accepted spelling.

[geriatrickid]

The "joke" aspect to this thread is that there is a reference to 1967 borders. There never were any borders in 1967. There were demarcation points where hostilities ended. The temple demarcation dispute between Thailand and Cambodia should be a red flag to people. "Borders" can be imposed and they can even be accepted by some, but unless there is an actual agreement in place for a generation or more, border disputes will reign. China and India have fought over their border and are now in a state of calm with no real agreement in place. Africans have skirmished on their borders and even the most peaceful longest border in the world between Canada and the USA was subject to war. Europeans were still killing each other over borders in the last century. My point here is that if people think the issue will be solved once formal borders are set, they are mistaken. it takes a real change in attitudes to create an agreed upon border. I don't think that we will see that change anytime soon from the implicated parties.

[Ulysses G.]

It started with a preemptive strike by Israel

Som nom na, they reaped what they sewed.

In the weeks leading up to the Six Day War, Arab leaders repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation. Together with Egypt's ejection of United Nations forces, the closing of the Straits of Tiran, and the massing of troops on Israel's northern and southern borders, the fiery rhetoric created a state of existential fear in Israel.

Egypt

"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." Nasser, May 27, 1967

"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." Nasser, May 28, 1967

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein.

http://www.sixdaywar...ent/threats.asp

Edited May 27, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[samurai]

It started with a preemptive strike by Israel

Som nom na, they reaped what they sewed.

...

http://www.sixdaywar...ent/threats.asp

Again.

Don't need your Hasbara lessons of history.

[Steely Dan]

The "joke" aspect to this thread is that there is a reference to 1967 borders. There never were any borders in 1967. There were demarcation points where hostilities ended. The temple demarcation dispute between Thailand and Cambodia should be a red flag to people. "Borders" can be imposed and they can even be accepted by some, but unless there is an actual agreement in place for a generation or more, border disputes will reign. China and India have fought over their border and are now in a state of calm with no real agreement in place. Africans have skirmished on their borders and even the most peaceful longest border in the world between Canada and the USA was subject to war. Europeans were still killing each other over borders in the last century. My point here is that if people think the issue will be solved once formal borders are set, they are mistaken. it takes a real change in attitudes to create an agreed upon border. I don't think that we will see that change anytime soon from the implicated parties.

The other joke aspect is Hamas make no pretence of the fact that if they got the pre-67 borders they would view this as a staging post from which to finish Israel off at some later date. From the river to the sea leaves no room for borders.

[kuffki]

It started with a preemptive strike by Israel

Som nom na, they reaped what they sewed.

...

http://www.sixdaywar...ent/threats.asp

Again.

Don't need your Hasbara lessons of history.

AGAIN, please share your version of events.

'Specifically, the war stemmed from Egypt's decision to expel United Nations troops from the Sinai peninsula and blockade Israel's port of Eilat, under international law a casus belli, or act of war, in addition to belligerent Arab threats to destroy Israel."

[samurai]

It started with a preemptive strike by Israel

Som nom na, they reaped what they sewed.

Again.

Don't need your Hasbara lessons of history.

AGAIN, please share your version of events.

'Specifically, the war stemmed from Egypt's decision to expel United Nations troops from the Sinai peninsula and blockade Israel's port of Eilat, under international law a casus belli, or act of war, in addition to belligerent Arab threats to destroy Israel."

I already did. Israel started the war with a preemptive strike.

The hasbara version is not the final truth of history. Its just an interpretation.

Even an hasbara fellow should be aware of this.

[kuffki]

I already did. Israel started the war with a preemptive strike.

The hasbara version is not the final truth of history. Its just an interpretation.

Even an hasbara fellow should be aware of this.

I have no doubt that your opinion is valuable, but how about some proof to your interpretation.

Or perhaps an explanation why say Egypt or Jordan did not make many waves in regards to the issue

[Jingthing]

People who wish to demonize Israel seem to think labeling ANY defense of ANY Israeli policy or historical event as "Hasbara" wins them the argument. No. It does not. Not anymore than trying to present Zionism as some kind of dirty word, when it is simply Jewish nationalism. If Palestinian nationalism is desirable, then what's wrong with Jewish nationalism, eh?

[Steely Dan]

Here is a long but good article categorising the different motivations behind anti Israel thinking, some posters may recognise elements of self within these. The best part is the CV of Obama's politburo who when viewed en masse can be seen to be rabidly anti-Israel - their appointment was no coincidence nor was Obama's many poisoned pills he gave to Netanyahu to swallow.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/barack-hussein-obama%e2%80%99s-malignant-obsession-with-jews-and-israel/

[up-country_sinclair]

As I posted earlier, so much of Netanyahu's petulance stems from his trying to appease the more radical elements in his fragile coalition, and the current opposition leader chastised him for putting the US/Israel relationship in jeopardy. Once Netanyahu's government collapses, more moderate voices will lead Israel closer towards peace and justice for all in the region.

For example, take a look at this quote from former PM Olmert in 2008:

"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then,"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/olmert-israel-must-return-to-1967-borders-1.257032

Again, this was a former Israeli PM, and he said it while in office. Returning to pre-1967 borders is not even remotely as controversial as some on this board are trying to make it out to be.

[JUDAS]

Here is a long but good article categorising the different motivations behind anti Israel thinking, some posters may recognise elements of self within these. The best part is the CV of Obama's politburo who when viewed en masse can be seen to be rabidly anti-Israel - their appointment was no coincidence nor was Obama's many poisoned pills he gave to Netanyahu to swallow.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/barack-hussein-obama%e2%80%99s-malignant-obsession-with-jews-and-israel/

Anti Jewish websites, anti Islamic websites, they have one thing in common, hatred.

[Steely Dan]

Anti Jewish websites, anti Islamic websites, they have one thing in common, hatred.

Ah yes, so much easier to dismiss out of hand by playing moral equivalence. It's amazing how every thread relating to Israel is umpteen pages long yet full blown genocides such as Sudan or the Congo get hardly a look in. In all this hyper scrutiny of Israel's actions scarcely a fraction of it even considers the nature of the beast Israel is supposed to deal with. As ever Pat Condell says it best, but as he doesn't pull his punches it will be too much for many to stomach.

[JUDAS]

Anti Jewish websites, anti Islamic websites, they have one thing in common, hatred.

Ah yes, so much easier to dismiss out of hand by playing moral equivalence. It's amazing how every thread relating to Israel is umpteen pages long yet full blown genocides such as Sudan or the Congo get hardly a look in. In all this hyper scrutiny of Israel's actions scarcely a fraction of it even considers the nature of the beast Israel is supposed to deal with. As ever Pat Condell says it best, but as he doesn't pull his punches it will be too much for many to stomach.

I'm afraid you are misinterpreting my post. I've come upon many sites which are clearly one sided, though, that being the case, they can and do make some very valid points at times. I can separate the wheat from the chaff but would never just accept comments on such sites without a great deal of self verification, they simply lack credibility due to their quite obvious agenda. My opinion is quite simple, if you wish to make a point, would it not better serve you to use a non hate link to do so?

[Steely Dan]

I'm afraid you are misinterpreting my post. I've come upon many sites which are clearly one sided, though, that being the case, they can and do make some very valid points at times. I can separate the wheat from the chaff but would never just accept comments on such sites without a great deal of self verification, they simply lack credibility due to their quite obvious agenda. My opinion is quite simple, if you wish to make a point, would it not better serve you to use a non hate link to do so?

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, I'm of the oppinion you are a fair and objective chap, and yes I would love to use sources which are less extreme, but we live in a world where in my eyes a cone of politically motivated silence is surpressing some very uncomfortable truths which seldom find their way into the mainstream.

[geriatrickid]

I was not overly distressed by President Obama's statements on the border issue until I read an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. It reminded me of some aspects of the border issues that have been forgotten in this thread's back and forth.

In Obama's clarification, he stated ""By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different" from 1967."

Dr. Krauthammer replies It means nothing of the sort. "Mutually" means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn't? Then, by definition, you're back to the 1967 lines.Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away. Note how Obama has undermined Israel's negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the '67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That '67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain. The very idea that Judaism's holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.

I had not considered that perspective before. Krauthammer also points out that having millions of arabs enter and settle into Israel proper (not the new Palestinian state) in accordance with the arab demands would effectively destroy the state of Israel as it would then become the 23rd arab state in the region and a second Palestinian state. Effectively, the Obama position is to reward the Palestinian negotiators for rejecting 3 viable peace offers all of which met the conditions Obama is now presenting. The conduct of the arabs to date has not been trustworthy and yet Israel is expected to bend over backwards. What exactly is the benefit to the safety and security of any Israeli to allow the country to be pushed into granting all of the arab demands?

Dr. Krauthammer sums it up in a blunt, yet honest manner; Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible

He's got a point as the Fatah-Hamas alliance has no intent to negotiate any land swaps, nor accept the state of Israel. Forcing borders now will most likely sow the seeds of more violence and most likely a war. I make no bones about liking President Obama and not being particularly fond of the current PM of Israel. However, in this case, I can see now why people think Obama blew it and why a man that I dislike, PM Netanyahu was so warmly greeted in the USA.

Mea culpa.

Edited May 28, 2011 by geriatrickid

[Steely Dan]

Here is a video explaining what exactly defensible borders implies. No security guarantee from Obama even remotely cuts it, especially after he ditched Mubarak throwing the whole region into chaos.

[Scott]

One post deleted. Please respond in a civil manner.

[luckizuchinni]

In Obama's clarification, he stated ""By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different" from 1967."

Dr. Krauthammer replies It means nothing of the sort. "Mutually" means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn't? Then, by definition, you're back to the 1967 lines.Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away. Note how Obama has undermined Israel's negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the '67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That '67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain. The very idea that Judaism's holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.

Dr. Krauthammer is way off base here and giving an illogical argument.

If the pre1967 border was used as a starting point for negotiations and land swaps, but only one side agrees, then no, the "new" border is not the pre 1967 border. The current border is what you would have because that is the status quo. Unless both sides agree to any change, then there is no agreement as to what a change should be, and no change will occur. Dr. Krauthammer's argument is as silly as saying if two countries go to war and one country only calls for peace, that peace will suddenly happen. Or if two companies are negotiating a contract and one company agrees to the price but the other one doesn't, that the contract is valid. It takes two to tango or nothing will occur.

I don't know of too many countries which would allow a unilateral forced solution on the Israelis, and the Israeli people will not stand for one. And their military can protect their borders.

I don't personally care if you start with the pre 1967 border and figure out land swaps or start with the current border and figure out what land can be transfered. I think the end result will be close to the same.

And if the Palestinians keep walking away from the negotiating table, then you can hardly blame the Israelis for keeping the status quo.

[samurai]

People who wish to demonize Israel seem to think labeling ANY defense of ANY Israeli policy or historical event as "Hasbara" wins them the argument. No. It does not. Not anymore than trying to present Zionism as some kind of dirty word, when it is simply Jewish nationalism. If Palestinian nationalism is desirable, then what's wrong with Jewish nationalism, eh?

Sorry you are wrong. I don't label ANY defense of ANY Israel policy or historical event as "Hasbara".

Try again.

If you are a man of facts and a debate in a civil manner you could maybe also focus one the poster in this thread who wants to demonise Obama as traitor of Israel and friend of the "Islamofascist".

[samurai]

Here is a long but good article categorising the different motivations behind anti Israel thinking, some posters may recognise elements of self within these. The best part is the CV of Obama's politburo who when viewed en masse can be seen to be rabidly anti-Israel - their appointment was no coincidence nor was Obama's many poisoned pills he gave to Netanyahu to swallow.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/barack-hussein-obama%e2%80%99s-malignant-obsession-with-jews-and-israel/

Anti Jewish websites, anti Islamic websites, they have one thing in common, hatred.

Some will call you an anti-Semite for that observation.

[Ulysses G.]

Dr. Krauthammer is way off base here and giving an illogical argument.  

Although you are certainly a very intelligent fellow and write some excellent posts. I'm afraid that Dr. Krauthammer pretty much always has you beat. 

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry you are wrong. I don't label ANY defense of ANY Israel policy or historical event as "Hasbara".

Only the ones that prove all the rabid anti-Israel posts to be inaccurate.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[samurai]

Sorry you are wrong. I don't label ANY defense of ANY Israel policy  or historical event as "Hasbara".

Only the ones that prove all the rabid anti-Israel posts to be inaccurate.  

No, I labelled an inaccurate post on history as Hasbara.

next ...

[Ulysses G.]

Why don't you PROVE that it is inaccurate - using a legitimate source for a change? You are full of groundless opinions, but short on any kind of facts. Talk is cheap.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[samurai]

What a disgrace.

Agreed.

Second that.

(for the sake of ambiguity )

[Scott]

Lots of deleted posts and replies to deleted posts. Some very offensive remarks have been removed.

[samurai]

Why don't you PROVE that it is inaccurate - using a legitimate source for a change? You are full of groundless opinions, but short on any kind of  facts. Talk is cheap.   

You are talking about the hasbara poster?

Don't expect they would ever use a legitimate source for a change.

[Ulysses G.]

All foolish insults. No FACTS!

Where is the meat?

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[kuffki]

Why don't you PROVE that it is inaccurate - using a legitimate source for a change? You are full of groundless opinions, but short on any kind of facts. Talk is cheap.

You are talking about the hasbara poster?

Don't expect they would ever use a legitimate source for a change.

please when you well and ready, provide us with legitimate source other than your personal opinion.