If you have been following this blog on the the issue of the 1967 border lines that the Obama Administration "suggested" as the starting point of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, you know this is an important issue. In the attached article Eli Lake from the Washington Times writes today about these negotiations and some of the background give and take between the Administration and Israel.
Israel must not be forced to return to the indefensible 1967 borders, even with "land swaps.". All military studies of the issue that I have seen along with good old common sense says that a 9 mile strip of land cannot be defended in modern times. If the past with horseback pulled carriages, maybe but not in the time of supersonic jets and even faster missiles. All of those who argue differently, either are naive or do not understand military tactics or are anti-Israel.
If you disagree, as always, we are open for a discussion.
Here is the article.
White House seeks Israeli agreement to negotiate on 1967 lines
Eli Lake - The Washington Times, June 13th, 2011The White House is pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to publicly adopt President Obama’s view that Israel’s pre-1967 borders should be the basis for future peace talks.
A senior administration official Friday told American Jewish leaders that the request for Israel to endorse the president’s peace principles was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations in September.
Steven Simon, the new White House National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, said he was looking to get both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to adopt Mr. Obama’s “principles as a basis for negotiation,” according to a recording of the call played for The Washington Times.
Mr. Obama said last month, “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” But the president has also rejected a set of U.S.-Israel understandings made during the Bush administration that tacitly accepted construction in some Jerusalem suburbs over the 1967 line.
Mr. Obama’s position would effectively reopen border negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that had been mostly settled in the last round of peace talks that ended in 2008.
The request of Mr. Netanyahu to publicly endorse those lines was made June 6 to the prime minister’s top peace negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho, at a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the National Security Council, according to an Israeli diplomat based in Jerusalem.
The diplomatic effort shows Mr. Obama is now ready to begin imposing general principles on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a tactic that until now the White House had avoided.
Mr. Simon, who served as the Clinton White House’s top counterterrorism official, said the United States had about a month to head off the Palestinian plan to declare a state during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting set for September.
“We have a month to see if we can work something out with the Israelis and Palestinians as accepting these principles as a basis for negotiations,” he said. “If that happens we are somewhat confident that the Palestinians will drop what they intend to do in the U.N.”
Mr. Simon said Palestinians in general were supportive of the idea.
“We are working with the Israeli government to see whether they can accept these principles as a basis for negotiations,” he said.
Nonetheless, Mr. Simon said the United States would oppose a Palestinian unilateral declaration at the United Nations, regardless of whether Israel adopted the Obama principles. He also said that the Palestinian leadership was divided on whether to proceed with the unilateral declaration in September.
Palestinian leaders have long said the 1967 lines, or the de facto borders of Israel prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, should be the basis of negotiations.
But since Israel’s victory in the war, successive governments have built Jewish suburbs in and around Jerusalem. Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed privately in 2008 talks, that most of these suburbs would remain part of Israel after a peace agreement, according to a Palestinian negotiation record first disclosed by the Al Jazeera news organization.
Last month, Mr. Obama, in a major foreign policy speech, endorsed the Palestinian position on the 1967 lines in his speech about the Arab Spring.
The New York Times reported that senior Obama administration officials were divided on whether the president should make mention of the 1967 lines in the way that he did.
The last-minute inclusion in the speech of language using the lines was a surprise to Mr. Netanyahu, who was en route to Washington when the president delivered his speech.
The tension over the 1967 lines lessened after Mr. Obama spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee during Mr. Netanyahu’s visit. He clarified that the final borders between Israel and a future state of Palestine should take into account demographic realities and facts on the ground, a clarification that brought Mr. Obama closer to his predecessor President George W. Bush.
Mr. Bush, in 2004, wrote a letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying it was “unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
The Israelis have long considered that letter to be the basis of a set of agreements with the Bush administration that would shield the Jewish state from criticism for building roads, housing and other developments inside the boundaries of the Jerusalem area settlements known as Maale Adumim.
Mr. Bush’s letter was written a year before Mr. Sharon became the first Israeli leader since Menachem
A senior administration official Friday told American Jewish leaders that the request for Israel to endorse the president’s peace principles was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations in September.
Steven Simon, the new White House National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, said he was looking to get both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to adopt Mr. Obama’s “principles as a basis for negotiation,” according to a recording of the call played for The Washington Times.
Mr. Obama said last month, “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” But the president has also rejected a set of U.S.-Israel understandings made during the Bush administration that tacitly accepted construction in some Jerusalem suburbs over the 1967 line.
Mr. Obama’s position would effectively reopen border negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that had been mostly settled in the last round of peace talks that ended in 2008.
The request of Mr. Netanyahu to publicly endorse those lines was made June 6 to the prime minister’s top peace negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho, at a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the National Security Council, according to an Israeli diplomat based in Jerusalem.
The diplomatic effort shows Mr. Obama is now ready to begin imposing general principles on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a tactic that until now the White House had avoided.
Mr. Simon, who served as the Clinton White House’s top counterterrorism official, said the United States had about a month to head off the Palestinian plan to declare a state during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting set for September.
“We have a month to see if we can work something out with the Israelis and Palestinians as accepting these principles as a basis for negotiations,” he said. “If that happens we are somewhat confident that the Palestinians will drop what they intend to do in the U.N.”
Mr. Simon said Palestinians in general were supportive of the idea.
“We are working with the Israeli government to see whether they can accept these principles as a basis for negotiations,” he said.
Nonetheless, Mr. Simon said the United States would oppose a Palestinian unilateral declaration at the United Nations, regardless of whether Israel adopted the Obama principles. He also said that the Palestinian leadership was divided on whether to proceed with the unilateral declaration in September.
Palestinian leaders have long said the 1967 lines, or the de facto borders of Israel prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, should be the basis of negotiations.
But since Israel’s victory in the war, successive governments have built Jewish suburbs in and around Jerusalem. Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed privately in 2008 talks, that most of these suburbs would remain part of Israel after a peace agreement, according to a Palestinian negotiation record first disclosed by the Al Jazeera news organization.
Last month, Mr. Obama, in a major foreign policy speech, endorsed the Palestinian position on the 1967 lines in his speech about the Arab Spring.
The New York Times reported that senior Obama administration officials were divided on whether the president should make mention of the 1967 lines in the way that he did.
The last-minute inclusion in the speech of language using the lines was a surprise to Mr. Netanyahu, who was en route to Washington when the president delivered his speech.
The tension over the 1967 lines lessened after Mr. Obama spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee during Mr. Netanyahu’s visit. He clarified that the final borders between Israel and a future state of Palestine should take into account demographic realities and facts on the ground, a clarification that brought Mr. Obama closer to his predecessor President George W. Bush.
Mr. Bush, in 2004, wrote a letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying it was “unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
The Israelis have long considered that letter to be the basis of a set of agreements with the Bush administration that would shield the Jewish state from criticism for building roads, housing and other developments inside the boundaries of the Jerusalem area settlements known as Maale Adumim.
Mr. Bush’s letter was written a year before Mr. Sharon became the first Israeli leader since Menachem
If I were the Palestinian negotiator and I were serious about making a deal, I wouldn't let the 9-mile strip become the deal breaker. I would say, "Let's widen the strip to make it as wide as you need to feel secure. What land are you willing to swap to make it a fair exchange?"
ReplyDeleteAt least this article almost stated Obama's proposal accurately. However, this statement is false: "But the president has also rejected a set of U.S.-Israel understandings made during the Bush administration that tacitly accepted construction in some Jerusalem suburbs over the 1967 line."
Obama was very clear in his speech that 1967 borders with land swaps was only a starting foundation, and the issues of Jerusalem and refugees would remain to be negotiated. Obama certainly did not propose any resolution regarding the Jerusalem suburbs that are over the 1967 border.
Here is what he said: "These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees."
I also object to some of the rhetoric -- such as "force" and "impose". Obama's words were "negotiate" and "mutually agree." If Obama wanted to try to force Israel, he would threaten to stop sending them foreign aid, stop selling them military hardware, or threaten to vote for a Palestinian state in the U.N. He has already said the U.S. will veto any Palestinian petition in the Security Council.
Did you know that Hamas has rejected Fayyad as prime minister? Unless they can come to some agreement between the Palestinian factions, they won't even be able to petition the U.N. for recognition as an independent state. That would save the U.S. from another potential 14-to-1 vote in the Security Council.
--David