Suggestion Would Threaten Our Ally
- Print print this page
- Discuss Comment, Blog about
Advertisement
President Obama has stated that Israel should go back to the borders from before the Six Day War because “permanent occupation” cannot work. I suppose he will ask Congress to give the land we acquired after the Mexican War back to Mexico.
After that they can work on a “Repatriation Act” to ship all U.S. citizens who do not have Native American ancestry back to the the lands their ancestors emigrated from. Maybe he should suggest the Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians withdraw to the A.D. 1 borders.
His suggestion is not practical and would lead to the destruction of the only Middle East democracy and our only real ally in the area.
Joseph Owen
Pinehurst
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
jimt 2 years ago
I guess you'd have to add W to the list of U.S. presidents who said the same thing. Bush stated that the U.S. position was that Israel needed to return to the 1949 Armistice lines as the basis for a territorial solution. The 1949 Armistice lines ARE the 1967 Borders!
It has been the position of every Administration since Nixon that a final peace settlement would be based on these borders, with modifications agreed to by the Parties. Do some homework instead of just aping the hysterical right's talking points as delivered from on high by Roger Ailes.
geoffcutler 2 years ago
It may be that past presidents have felt pre-1967 borders would be required for final peace, but none made it public policy, and certainly didn't call for them in a major policy speech on the day before the Israeli Prime Minister was to visit the White House. They knew the idea to be unrealistic expectations of the Israeli side.
NYTimes, Friday, May 20, 2011
"Mr. Obama's statement represented a subtle, but significant shift, in American policy."
"Mr. Netenyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama's commitments to peace, he 'expects to hear reaffimation from President Obama of American committments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.'
Those committments came in a letter from President George W. Bush which stated, among other things that 'it is unrealistic to expect the outcome or final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armstice lines of 1949' another way of describing the 1967 boundaries."
teufelhunden 2 years ago
Ok calm down. We're in 2011 and it's not a good idea for that to happen regardless of who said what in the past. End of story. Capiche?
commonsense77 2 years ago
The only Middle Eastern democracy? I am afraid Mr. Owen and I have some disagreement on what a democracy should look like. 15-20% of citizens live under martial law (using that standard Iran is a democracy). Recently the Isreali Knesset passed legislation to deny Palestinians rights to access the courts, and deny Non-Jewish lawmakers can't travel to neighboring nations.
Let's stop kidding ourselves and look out for America's best interest.
honesty2 2 years ago
Would you please explain what you think America's best interest is in this situation?
jimt 2 years ago
"We're in 2011 and it's not a good idea for that to happen regardless of who said what in the past. End of story."
Right Tueffy, when Dubya says it in 2001-2008 it's o.k., but three years latter, mysteriously, it's not? Really logical (sic).
teufelhunden 2 years ago
Wasn't ok then either. I didn't say anything about Bush and his epic fails. Didn't say anything about Obama and his epic fails either. What we do now is really what is going to matter. I think that is very logical so don't go assuming I'm playing your game because I am clearly not.
OldPilot 2 years ago
The 1967 borders are not defensible from the viewpoint of Israel, that's a simple fact. Israel is a democracy and the only democracy in the middle east, that's a simple fact. Suggest the folks who don't understand this read some history: the politics that drove how the borders were set by the UN, what happened the day independance was declared in 1948, and what has happened since.
jimt 2 years ago
If I recall correctly, and I do, Israel was able to defend itself quite handily within the 1949 Armistice border in the six-day war of 1967, and because of behind-the-scenes political accommodations with Jordan in place by 1973, it was able to defend itself quite handily in the October, 1973 War as well.
If there is ever a peace treaty with the Palestinians it means, by definition, that both parties agree to its terms. Any peace treaty will be based on roughly the 1949/1967 armistice/border lines demarking Israeli and then Jordanian territories. Now the West Bank will become Palestine instead of being part of Jordan. Moreover, any peace treaty will place limits on the size and types of weaponry an independent Palestine may field. Everybody who is familiar with the history of the various attempts at peace negotiations since the Oslo Accords knows this. Everybody who is familiar with International Law with regard to occupied territories following a war also knows that it is illegal to build settlements on the occupied territory for permanent use by the occupier's civilians. Accordingly, the position of the United States has always been that these Israeli settlements are illegal and an obstacle to negotiating a lasting peace between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
The bottom line is that Israel will retain a massive military superiority over any future Palestinian state, a state that will almost certainly have to forgo fielding tanks, artillery, anti-tank missiles, surface to surface missiles, and fighter aircraft, as a condition of statehood and peace with Israel. So the argument that Israel's borders with such a state would be "indefensible," ignores both the political reality that each Party accepts the border as legitimate and ongoing Israeli military superiority.
OldPilot 2 years ago
Unfortunately the folks who fought those wars and will have to fight future wars disagree. Anyone with an ounce of sense would defer to their opinion of what is and is not defensible.
jimt 2 years ago
Any country can be absolutely defensible. But to do so, all other countries, especially those that have had or may have conflicts, of any nature, with said country, must accept being less than absolutely defensible.
There are numerous peace advocates among Israelis who have fought in past wars and will be called upon to fight future wars if peace cannot be achieved. Many of Israel's current and past peace advocates are past generals, including Ehud Barak and the late Yitzak Rabin. Your assertion that "anyone with an ounce of sense would defer to their opinion of what is and is not defensible" is belied by their support for the peace process that includes negotiating borders with Palestinians based on, with agreed upon modifications, of the 49/67 borders.
Peace between states who are in conflict comes at the end of a process in which the two sides agree to peace terms, which must include territorial agreement if the conflict includes territorial disputes. If no such agreement exists, there can be no peace, only the absence of war of uncertain duration. In this situation, terrorism and periods of low-intensity conflict are likely to exist, with the very real possibility of full-scale war at some point in the future. Such is the state of things between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians. And such it will remain until Israel agrees to peace based on the 49/67 borders, with modifications.
jimt 2 years ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
teufelhunden 2 years ago
You're nasty.
Ross 2 years ago
jimmie - are you eating brain food again. Your posts have been enlightening - even though I may not totally agree. Hey - are you becoming a liberal..........
jimt 2 years ago
Yeah, it's so unique that its held by every student of asymmetrical warfare, taught at West Point and elsewhere, and cost us dearly in Vietnam, Iraq II, and both us and the Russians in Afghanistan.
The Israelis are playing a losing game both politically and eventually militarily. Their 100+ nuclear weapons won't help them deal with the Palestinians. Their low birth rate compared to the Palestinians in and out of Israel proper threatens their cohesion, democracy, and raison d'etre.
jimt 2 years ago
"We?"
I didn't realize that Israel's existence as a Jewish state was up to us.
OldPilot 2 years ago
Suspect many who express some of the less sensible opinions are neither Jewish or have spent time in Israel.
jimt 2 years ago
Israel's constitution says Israel was founded to be a Jewish and democratic state. That is its reason for existence. Many Israelis, including Netanyahu, have expressed the belief that the growing population of Israeli-Arabs AND the Arabs in the occupied territories threaten both of these fundamental objectives.
Consider the following text which I found in Wikipedia:
"In the northern part of Israel the percentage of Jewish population is declining. The increasing population of Arabs within Israel, and the majority status they hold in two major geographic regions — the Galilee and the Triangle — has become a growing point of open political contention in recent years.
The phrase demographic threat (or demographic bomb) is used within the Israeli political sphere to describe the growth of Israel's Arab citizenry as constituting a threat to its maintenance of its status as a Jewish state with a Jewish demographic majority...The term "demographic bomb" was famously used by Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003 when he noted that if the percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority."