Israel has a right to exist within its pre-1967 borders, or some semblence thereof, for two and only two reasons:

1. Her people wish to continue living there, under an Israeli flag. And they have fought for this and won.

2. Everyone within these boundaries — Jew and non-Jew — is accorded basic civil and political rights, and with the rarest exceptions wishes to remain citizens of the State of Israel.

Israel has an equivalent right to hold on to Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Mecca, Medina (thanks for reminding us of the Jewish history there, Yehudit), the North Pole, the entire dark side of the Moon if she wants to — as long as the essential above conditions exist within those areas as well. And of course they don’t.

On refugees and “right of return”, international law (Geneva Convention) and general standards of “just war” are pretty clear: if civilians leave their homes during a military conflict, they are allowed to return when the war is over. The law in general is on the side of the Arabs, and people ought to admit this and stop offering counter-examples of unjust forced transfer as some sort of justification.

Israel, however, is also completely entitled to ignore these abstract standards in this case. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson “international law” and international standards of justice are not a suicide pact.

On Jerusalem, both sides are entitled to fight for what they think God gave them for as long as they want. I think that the final Clinton-Barak formulation was pretty good, but frankly I agree with you that the Israeli center is probably in no mood to accomodate that.

Frankly, I’d be sympathetic to keeping Arab Jerusalem under Israel rule, as a “this is what you lost when Arafat rejected Barak” reminder. On the other hand, if this happens, for that reason, or to appease the Orthodoxy, and it ends up keeping Hamas and the martyrs brigades in business and turning the town into a mini-Kashmir, it would be a stupid thing. In reality, final status talks on Jerusalem aren’t going to go anywhere until there is about a thousand times more trust between the two peoples than there is now. Discussing Jerusalem is like discussing where to put the cherry on the top of the cake when it hasn’t even been baked yet.

I think it is good that the conversation has cooled down.And no matter what argument is made on the palestinian-israeli question can never be 100% consistent. The only chink in your argument is that everyone of your arguments to go back to the 67 borders will be used by Hamas to eliminate the state of Israel. They are almost identical.When you argue that the land was stolen and it must be returned that goes for much of the pre 1967 lands of Israel also. And of course many Palestinians will want to carry it back to 1948 also. Why are those arguments good for going back to 1967 but not for going back to 1948? Or even 1919. That is the logic behind the right of return.

I think your heart is in the right place. But to expect Israel to forget all of the threats of elimination and just hope that the Palestinians have given up, let alone many of their neighbors, on the original charter of the PLO is wishfull thinking. Israel will never give up Jerusalem. They may allow limited autonomy in some of the arabic neighborhoods of east jerusalem but they will not go back to pre 1967 borders. The fact that they were kept away from the Wailing Wall is too fresh a memory and they will never let it go.And the talk of making Jerusalem a UN protectorate will never go down either. The UN has proven it can do a fine job when passions are cool but when bullets fly the blue helmets either leave or hunker down, They don’t enforce against a concerted effort. Remember the UN was in Sinai before the 1967 war and Israel depended on them to keep Egypt out. When Egypt pushed, the UN folded.

The majority of Israel has accepred the idea of a Palestinian State. Some Palestinians have too but many have not and so far the moderate Palestinian factions have not shown that they have any controll of the ones who still dream of Jew free Palestine.

Kevin Peters

The difference between my position and yours is that I do understand why some Arabs can’t let the grievance culture go: it’s the official position of every Arab or Palestinian governmental or social agency, from Hamas to Abu Mazzen, reinforced by physical intimidation and pervasive propaganda in every aspect of life.

Withdrawal might bring things to head, but I think the result will be uncontrolled terror and then an all out war. So let’s hope that you’re right.

it is the willfull ignorance of some on the left that scares me. What this man said is Hamas policy and it is the cornerstone of their political philosophy. But many on the left pressure Israel to treat them as if they are just an opposition political party. it makes no sense but Israel must leave Gaza, just to relieve the worldwide political heat that is dumped on them. My guess is that Hamas, after a month or two, will start major terrorist operations out of Gaza and it will give Israel the political cover to finish the security wall. I could be suprised but much of the progressive left will still blame Israel for defnding itself. they will pressure israel to make a deal and they will ignore the comments made above. They will talk about the good social services Hamas provides. It’s like sayiong if the KKK had a good free lunch and breakfast programs for the poor it would be ok to ignore their sick core values.

Kevin Peters

But even if I’m wrong and Palestinians fail to marginalize their extremists, I would argue that Israel is better off protecting itself from them behind smaller, more secure, internationally recognized borders, than trying to hold on an ‘Eretz Israel’ teeming with those committed to its destruction.

A current reminder of what israel has to negotiate with. These are the words of senior hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar in a recent interview with the italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera. When asked if Israel went back to the 1967 border if hamas would recognize the right of Israel to excist.

“hamas would definetlynot be prepared for coexistence with Israel. It can be a temporary situation for 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the end term israel will dissapear from the face of the earth”. yeah, that sounds like a peace partner.

kevin Peters

I brought up Nazis because the Islamists of the day were actual bona fide allies of the Nazis; it was not an unfair allusion at all.

I’m sorry that you feel contempt for us here, or maybe it was just a temporary angry moment, but at the risk of angering you further, you only address the wall, not the state-sanctioned inculcation of hatred for Jews in PLO-land and their stated goal of obliteration of Israel.

I don’t want to beat this thread to the ground, but the wall is a side issue. Changing the boundaries will do nothing of substance to solve the underlying issue, which is the existence of Israel.