Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Stephen Green

Bio

July 18, 2013 - 5:00 am

From the J-Post:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denied on Tuesday an official’s remarks that Israel had agreed to resume peace talks based on the borders of a Palestinian state being drawn along lines from before a 1967 Middle East war, and agreed land swaps.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said “the report is untrue,” calling Reuters with the statement after initially declining to comment on what the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Three points for the soft-headed dreamers out there who think that all Israel needs to do is return to her ’67 borders and then all would be fine.

• Israel’s Arab neighbors were happy to try and push Israel into the sea back before 1967. It was those failed efforts that caused Israel to occupy lands outside of the ’67 lines.

• For safety reasons, Israel simply must hold on to at least small bits of the West Bank, especially now that the Arab world is devolving away from nation-states and into tribal, religious, and ethnic fiefdoms. The days of strongmen maintaining order within their own borders is over (See: Iraq, Syria, Egypt).

• Israel can’t let go of Golan, because it gives them strategic depth in rugged terrain over an historic invasion route. And anyway, who is there is Syria with the authority to take it back? Baby Assad? A “nice” rebel group? Al Qaeda? Fuggidaoubbit.

Surely, there’s room to negotiate. Israel tried — tried — to give the Palestinians 93% of everything they wanted about a dozen years ago, only to have Arafat rebuff them, then go on to launch another terror campaign. But they need an honest negotiating partner, and that’s one thing SecState Kerry can’t seem to rustle up, no matter how many trips he makes to the region.

Stephen Green began blogging at VodkaPundit.com in early 2002, and has served as PJMedia's Denver editor since 2008. He's one of the hosts on PJTV, and one-third of PJTV's Trifecta team with Scott Ott and Bill Whittle. Steve lives with his wife and sons in the hills and woods of Monument, Colorado, where he enjoys the occasional lovely adult beverage.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Stephen:

I agree with most of what you write. However, there is a problem already in your title. There are NO 1967 borders. What is usually referred to as such, are actually the 1949 Armistice lines. These have no international standing. Armistice lines don't magically turn into international borders. If they did, they heck, let's turn the June 11, 1967 lines into international borders. Oops, Egypt might not like that!

The last binding agreement is probably the British mandate of Palestine, from the early 20's of the last century. That allocated all of the land west of the Jordan river to a Jewish homeland.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Even if such thing as an "honest negotiating partner" existed, Kerry is such an absolute boob and phony nobody would seriously consider either him or the Weakest U.S. President in history as meaningful supporters of real negotiations; surely Bibi is smart enough to not trust our government in its current form. Accurate assessment Mr. Green.

Remember BENGHAZI!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Many outsiders fail to recognize the dire consequences of Israeli "concessions." Israeli Jews clearly recognize the literal life and death seriousness of any potential "negotiations" that many westerners see as merely an extension of identity politics.

Remember BENGHAZI!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What has everyone salivating about "peace at hand" is Kerry resurrecting Prince Abdullah's 2002 peace plan. The basic structure then was that Israel recede to the 1949 armistice lines and agree to the right of return for refugees, at least in principle. Both conditions were total non-starters for the very reasons you list and they have not changed with age.

I have been watching the entire "peace process" for as long as I have been aware of politics and the news. The starting point for Arab negotiators, as well as their expected endpoint, has always been the maximalist one. They expect Israel to give up everything in exchange for nothing tangible. Apparently, multigenerational failure to yield a settlement is not sufficient reason to change strategy at this point. Coddling by a feckless US Sec. State grappling for a Nobel Peace Prize certainly does not militate for change.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Surely there's room to negotiate"? And then Mr. Vodka you go on to point out the futility of Israel's past negotiations, and the impossibility of any present negotiations. So no, I would say there is no room to negotiate. Maybe in that lovely fantasy world when the Arabs have embraced peaceful, tolerant, Rights Based Democracy there will be room to negotiate. But like waiting for the Messiah, I am not holding my breath.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thank you for treating me like an idiot while regurgitating my final sentence.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"But they need an honest negotiating partner, and that’s one thing SecState Kerry can’t seem to rustle up, no matter how many trips he makes to the region."

Diogenes would have better luck than Israel.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All