- #1
- 14,983
- 26
The title hopefully says it all. What's so special about the 1967 borders of Israel, as opposed to the 1948 borders or the 1979 borders or the 2011 borders?
State of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip
Currently in Israel, in the debate relating to the borders of Israel, "Greater Israel" is generally used to refer to the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories, the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. However, because of the controversial nature of the term, the term Land of Israel is used.
Joel Greenberg, writing in the New York Times notes; ‘At Israel's founding in 1948, the Labor Zionist leadership, which went on to govern Israel in its first three decades of independence, accepted a pragmatic partition of what had been British Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states. The opposition Revisionist Zionists, who evolved into today's Likud party, sought Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema -- Greater Israel, or literally, the Whole Land of Israel.[1] The capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt during the Six Day War in 1967, led to the growth of the non-parliamentary Movement for Greater Israel and the construction of Israeli settlements. The 1977 elections, which brought Likud to power also had considerable impact on acceptance and rejection of the term. Greenberg notes:
THE seed was sown in 1977, when Menachem Begin of Likud brought his party to power for the first time in a stunning election victory over Labor. A decade before, in the 1967 war, Israeli troops had in effect undone the partition accepted in 1948 by overrunning the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ever since, Mr. Begin had preached undying loyalty to what he called Judea and Samaria (the West Bank lands) and promoted Jewish settlement there. But he did not annex the West Bank and Gaza to Israel after he took office, reflecting a recognition that absorbing the Palestinians could turn Israel into a binational state instead of a Jewish one.[1]Yitzhak Shamir was a dedicated proponent of Greater Israel and as Israeli Prime Minister gave the settler movement funding and Israeli governmental legitimisation.[2]
Annexation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is part of the platform of the Israeli Likud party, and of some other Israeli political parties.[3] On September 14, 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked that "Greater Israel is over. There is no such thing. Anyone who talks that way is deluding themselves".[4]
The same territory, "from the river to the sea", is also claimed as Palestine by the PLO[5] and Hamas.[6]
Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, "preaches" the necessity of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[7][8][9] Rabbi Meir Kahane, assassinated Jewish leader and Knesset Member who founded the American Jewish Defense League and the Israeli Kach party worked towards this and other Religious Zionist goals.
Hurkyl said:The title hopefully says it all. What's so special about the 1967 borders of Israel, as opposed to the 1948 borders or the 1979 borders or the 2011 borders?
mege said:All of the 'legality' of the issue aside (International Law, and the UN are all very grey areas anyhow), I feel that being punitive towards Israel is total pandering towards extremists like Hamas. Israel has been a beacon of light in the Middle East, and has put the Islamic countries to shame.
rootX said:If you want to ignore International Law and the UN, I don't know on what basis you are calling Hamas extremists.
I also don't understand all of this beacon of light and "always right" Israel propaganda material.
For clarification, I am not defending Hamas but I think your approach here is irrational and heavily biased as is of Proton Soup.
If Israel was the one pushing that the borders of Israel be set at the 1967 borders, your post would make sense to me.mege said:but instead choose to take what they felt was rightly theirs, and stop.
Charter
The 1999 Likud charter emphasizes the right of settlement.
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."[11]
Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and it also claims Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.
"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz."[12]
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[11]
With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state.[13] "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land."[14]
In June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace.[15]
Hey! I started this thread so I can get an answer to a question. If you want to discuss something else, then take it to another thread, and stop derailing mine!nobahar said:I apologise to Hurkyl in advance for not answering your question! Instead I’d like to address some points made by Mege.
One issue was the borders. Israel was awarded 56% of Palestine under the UN Partition resolution. By the end of the first Arab-Israeli War in 1949 they had about 80% of Palestine. So there was an issue of it having to return to those Partition borders.
And the second big question was the refugees. The 750,000 Palestinians who’d been expelled in 1948 and the question of how to resolve that question. And Israel didn’t want to take back the Palestinian refugees.
And so now you have after ‘67. What you can say with a certain amount of accuracy, I think it was very well put by Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel’s former Foreign Minister, in his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, he said in June 1967 — and it’s your listners, I think it’s worth pondering — “in June ‘67 we won the ‘48 borders.” That is to say after June ‘67 there was no longer any talk about returning to the Partition Plan, “we won the borders.”
Hurkyl said:The title hopefully says it all. What's so special about the 1967 borders of Israel, as opposed to the 1948 borders or the 1979 borders or the 2011 borders?
mege said:Without totally disolving Israel, the 1967 borders are the most contentions because they were taken in an aggressive act. The 1948 borders don't really 'mix' the population of Israel like the post-1967 borders do …
Hurkyl said:… Are you trying to say that others have fully accepted Israel's claims to the 1967 borders, and that's why those particular borders keep coming up?
Hurkyl said:I actually want to hear an answer to my question! Why do people keep talking about the 1967 borders? I'm also interested in hearing other borders too, and the motivations for those.
I'm not interested in any debate on the merits of any particular position on the topic, or commentary on the positions associated to those borders. Side discussions on these issues should be started in new threads before they drown out this one.
The 1967 borders refer to the armistice lines that were in place between Israel and its neighboring countries (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) before the Six-Day War in 1967. This topic is important because it is a major factor in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as both parties have differing views on the borders and their legitimacy.
In 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt and its allies, resulting in the Six-Day War. During the war, Israel captured territories that were previously controlled by Egypt (Sinai Peninsula), Jordan (West Bank), and Syria (Golan Heights). This led to a significant change in the borders and has since been a major point of contention in the region.
The 1967 borders are a crucial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they determine the boundaries of a potential Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority claims the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are territories that were occupied by Israel in 1967. However, Israel argues that these territories are disputed and that the borders should be negotiated through peace talks.
The United Nations Security Council has passed several resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967, including Resolution 242 and 338. The international community, including the European Union and most Arab countries, also generally supports a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.
Many peace negotiations and proposals have been made over the years, but no significant changes to the 1967 borders have been made. Some argue that the borders may change through a negotiated agreement between Israel and Palestine, while others believe that the current borders will remain a contentious issue in the ongoing conflict.