In his article of 6 June 2011 in The New Yorker Magazine titled ‘O’bama vs. Netanyahu,’ Hendrik Hertzberg, in support of President Obama’s attempt to isolate and enable the destruction of Israel, like all liberals, especially those in the media, leaves no lie unturned and provides no shortage of distortions. Given the lack of space, I have chosen to focus only on one of them.
“The Thursday before, anticipating the imminent arrival of the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama had said that the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state “should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps”— a fundamental tenet of American policy for decades, a goal of Israeli and Palestinian representatives in every serious negotiation, and an obvious feature of any conceivable settlement.”
Contrary to Hertzberg’s misrepresentation, by calling for a return to the June 4, “1967 borders” (also known as the 1949 Armistice Line or the “Green Line”), with “mutually agreed” land swaps, Obama not only has ignored the fact that the “Green Line” merely is an armistice line and not a real international boundary, but more so has disregarded Resolution 242 of 1967, the basis of almost every previous Arab Israeli peace initiative since the Six-Day War beginning with the Rogers Plan of 1969. Specifically, the Resolution calls for a “negotiated” withdrawal from “territories,” not “the territories” to “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” In other words, it stipulates that Israel is not required to concede sovereign land in exchange for any West Bank land it retains under a future peace accord. Further, as demonstrated by their rejection of the generous Israeli concessions offered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008 that went even further than those which earlier the PLO rejected at Camp David and Taba the concept of “mutually agreed” land swaps neither is accepted by the “Palestinians” nor has it ever been central to any peace initiative. This is because the Palestinians, be it Hamas or the “moderate” Palestinian Authority, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist nor are they willing to accept anything aside from the pre-1967 lines, meaning the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
In fact, one need not look any further than its most recent commitment to Israel’s security, the 2004 Bush (Sharon) Letter as the basis for any withdrawal, to see that a return to the 1967 lines has in no way been “a fundamental tenet of American policy for decades.” This commitment, at the time backed by a bi-partisan majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress, by linking the idea of defensible borders to Israel’s own defensive capabilities, such that “the United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure and defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats,” not only supports Israel’s requirement for defensible borders, but highlights that a “defensible border” must improve Israel’s ability to provide for its own security. This distinction regarding Israel’s ability to defend itself is a necessity given that while a “secure boundary” as per Resolutions 242 includes the same interpretation it also could imply a boundary that was secured by U.S. guarantees, NATO troops, or even other international forces all of which could prove to be unreliable. Further, “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers,” the U.S. commitment makes clear that the retention of the existing settlement blocks is not contingent on the need for reciprocal land swaps using territory under Israeli sovereignty from within the 1967 borders, such that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a “full and complete” return to the 1949 Armistice Lines.” Thus, the Bush (Sharon) letter, rather specifically tied defensible borders to Israel’s ability to defend itself through clear-cut modifications of the 1967 lines.
The “new reality” to which President Bush was referring is that Israel’s borders no longer are defensible based on a strategy of preemption and offense against conventional Arab armies amassing on them, unlike in the 1967 war whereby such borders served as the starting point for an expansion into the Sinai, Golan Heights and the West Bank in order to avoid complete invasion akin to that of the 1948 War of Independence. In more recent times, as demonstrated in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, holding these territories is necessary for fighting a defensive rather than offensive war. Further, given the transformation of many of Israel’s enemies from large state entities with conventional military to guerrilla organizations with massive rocket arsenals and the fact that the West Bank virtually overlooks Israel’s main cities, sitting several thousand feet above major population centers such as Tel Aviv, it is critical to avert the introduction there of mortars, rockets, and surface-to-air missiles. As such, Israel’s presence along the eastern perimeter of the West Bank in the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert has and will continue to enable it to prevent weapons smuggling by such terrorists and the infiltration of hostile forces. Thus, while true that the majority of, if not most, Israeli’s would like to live in peace, an agreement along the indefensible 1967 borders, with “mutually” agreed land swaps, in no way would achieve this goal as such borders would not ensure that a future peace agreement will be stable and not undermined by the combination of Israeli vulnerabilities and the remaining hostility that might be prevalent even after a formal peace treaty has been signed.
Despite Hertzberg’s blatant distortions, the erosion of the concept of defensible borders began recently in 2000 with Ehud Barack at Camp David II, despite severe opposition from both the military and the public, and even then there was no public agreement by Israel for “mutually agreed” land swaps. In fact, neither Shimon Perez, nor his predecessor Yitzak Rabin, the architect of the vilified Oslo Accords, anticipated an outcome that would result in a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines. Similarly, Menachem Begin, in the aftermath of the 1978 Camp David Accords, through Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, indicated that Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai should not be seen as a precedent for other fronts. By exiting the Sinai, Begin made it clear that Israel had fulfilled the territorial aspects of Resolution 242 and no more withdrawals could be contemplated in any future peace deals.
As pointed out by Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, in a paper on ‘Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace,’ by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Barak inaugurated a new land-for-peace paradigm that was not rooted in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which had governed all Arab Israeli peace initiatives since the Six-Day War. Instead, from that point on, Israel was expected to live within the curtailed borders that Barak had proposed. Even more far-reaching, the Palestinian leadership succeeded in establishing in the minds of Western policymakers the idea that the “1967 lines” – that is, the 1949 armistice lines – should be the new frame of reference for all future negotiations, as opposed to the notion of “secure and recognized boundaries” which had been unanimously approved by the UN Security Council after the Six-Day War.
He further explains that in the aftermath of Arafat’s rejection of Ehud Barak’s peace offer, the Palestinian suicide bombing war that followed, Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Second Lebanon War, the failed Annapolis talks, the war in Gaza, the Netanyahu government correctly is re-adopting the notion that safeguarding Israel’s vital security requirements is the only path to a viable and durable peace with the so-called “Palestinians.” This includes defensible borders, a demilitarized Palestinian entity, control of a unified airspace with Judea and Samaria, electromagnetic communications frequency security, and other guarantees all of which mark a shift away from the previously held misperception that territorial withdrawals would make room for a peace deal, and that such a deal would bring security. According to Yaalon, “Prime Minister Netanyahu is articulating a broad Israeli consensus that has been forged in the trauma of recent events for a security-first approach as the only avenue to real peace.”
Such a consensus is not incorrect given that the main objective of the “Palestinians” is not statehood along the 1967 lines, but instead to escalate the conflict. After all, if peaceful coexistance truly was desired they would not have rejected the offer by Barack and that of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who resurrected the land swap idea in 2008 as part of newly proposed Israeli concessions that went even further than those at Camp David and Taba. Despite agreeing to a land swap for 1.9% of the West Bank, which relates to the size of the areas of Jewish settlements, in return for high quality land near the center of Israel, but which does not address Israel’s vital security needs, the “Palestinians” do not truly accept the concept of “mutually agrreed” land swaps because it would impede their claim to a right of return. In fact, just recently, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, in a New York Times op-ed, attempted to re-write history by falsely highlighting “Palestinian victimhood” and emphasized confrontation. According to Abbas, ”Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.” Clearly, the expansion of Palestinian “lawfare” and other attempts to deligitimize Israel would not further peace and compromise.
Further, despite written guarantees accompanying the Declaration of Principals (“DOP”) and the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement where the PLO undertook, but failed, to remove those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, their stated objective remains the “Liberation of Palestine through armed struggle” and not statehood via peaceful negotiations. This is made brutally clear by the all too familiar “Palestinian” call to arms, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which is supported by the indoctrination of the populace with hatred toward the Jews and a culture of incessant Islamic suicide terrorism where martyrdom is rewarded and praised. Equally, if not more telling, is the 1988 Hamas Charter, which calls for the “obliteration of Israel” and the extermination of the Jewish people. Once again, this intention was highlighted in a May 17, 2011 interview in the Palestinian daily al-Quds with Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Gaza who stated that:
“The position of the [Hamas] movement regarding the negotiations and the resistance has not changed. We’re in favor of the way of resistance, and the way of negotiations was and still contradicts the position of the majority of the Palestinian people, who voted for Hamas in the 2006 general elections… The world should know that there was no change in the position of the movement regarding resistance, as it is the only way. We can only negotiate issues within the framework of resistance.”
Not only don’t the so-called “Palestinians,” but neither have their Arab patrons ever subscribed to a “two-state” solution in which they would coexist peacefully with the Jewish people of Israel. After all, there was no shortage of Arab aggression toward Israel from long before the 1948 War of Independence through the 1967 Six Day War, when the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights were captured in self defense, despite there having been not a single settlement in any of these territories. More so, if the Palestinians and/or Arabs truly were interested in “Palestinian” statehood, such could have been granted in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or both between 1949 and 1967, when both Egypt and Jordan, respectively, illegally occupied those territories.
Today, as in the past, Israel’s enemies continue to seek its destruction and Israel only can depend on itself to defend its people. While it is important to strive for peace, Israel must always be ready to fight. As such, a return by Israel to a security-first approach of maintaining defensible borders beyond the 1967 lines, as per U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, must remain firmly rooted in its longstanding commitment to defend itself without reliance on foreign forces.
noahscovenant 