I was trolling the web, looking for news of some import to write about. found plenty of it.
Saw the headlines about Benjamin Netanyahu saying in a speech before congress that going back to the indefensible pre-1967 borders was unacceptable. My initial thought about this was something along these lines:
“I wonder what Moshe Dayan thought about how indefensible those borders were, when he pounded the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Egyptians, and armies that were nearly 3 times the size of his, manpower wise, and whipped their asses, took the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.”
But then again, that land was hard fought for, and it would be damnably hard to give it up now, especially if you are as security conscious as the Israelis are. Especially seeing as how the Syrians and the Israelis are technically still at war with each other, never having signed a peace treaty formally ending hostilities between the two nations. And if you have ever read up on the Six days war, or even know just the basic history of the region, you’d know why the Israelis are so protective of those borders.
So I don’t blame P.M. Netanyahu for countering assertions that the borders in any potential “two-state solution” should go back to pre-six day war borders.
But let’s get one thing clear. The President’s words on this subject were NOT that the new Israeli border be those of Israel prior to the six days war, no matter what the Republicans or P.M. Netanyahu think.
Let us, rather than allow hyperbole to rule the day, using opinion of what was supposedly said, use the President’s words directly:
And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. (Applause.) It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people — (applause) — and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. (Applause.)
To read the speech in question, click here. To read the original speech, referenced in the above text, click here.
To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army].
General Matityahu Peled
Viddy of the day: President Obama at 2011 AIPAC Policy Conference
What that means, if you need any clarification, is that the basis of any 2 state agreement would exist using negotiation. That’s all. Very basic stuff. No specific mention of pre six days war borders, not even a vague allusion to it.
And let’s think for a minute about where a potential Palestinian state would actually exist.
Somewhere within the land that the Israelis took in 1967. There would, by necessity, HAVE to be some land concession, some portion of that land given up by the Israelis to the Palestinians that they initially took in 1967. That simply cannot be avoided. The President, and most people, including P.M. Netanyahu, want a Two State solution.
No one expects, and no one has asked, that the Israelis give to the Palestinians ALL the land from the Six days war, and anyone who did would be a laughingstock. Luckily, no one has done that.
You’d never know that if you listened to the news, though.
Another case of the news being slanted against not the left, not any political faction, or any individual, but against reality, choosing to create a story rather than report the truth.
Sad but true.
That’s it from here, America. G’night.