How reasonable is the proposition for Palestine to be recognized 1967 borders?
38 replies, posted
As we all know, Palestine is applying for UN recognition. Part of this application is for Palestine to be recognized at it's 1967 borders.
As much as I am in support of this proposal, I think it is highly unlikely that such a change will ever happen. The settlements that are outside the borders are many in number and population, and a forced eviction is unlikely. While it is possible that Palestine could "absorb" these settlements, I do not see that happening, due to the intense friction between Israeli Arabs and the Israeli government. It probably would be the same way with Jewish Palestinians and the Palestinian government.
As you point out, there are currently fairly massive issues with the current settlements that are already there, the de facto situation that has been going on as well as racial tension.
I'd say people also don't want to evoke feelings of the polish resettlements which this certainly would.
As a last thing, international institutions do actually often look at nationalities when determining borders.
They won’t be evicted. They’ll just become citizens and pledge to the Palestinian flag. Of course this is all hypothetical; the U.S. has already made it clear they’ll veto the Sept. 23rd resolution granting Palestine statehood.
So all they’d get is non-member status, same level as the Vatican and an upgrade from their current “permanent observer" status
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32374981]They won’t be evicted. They’ll just become citizens and pledge to the Palestinian flag. Of course this is all hypothetical; the U.S. has already made it clear they’ll veto the Sept. 23rd resolution granting Palestine statehood.
So all they’d get is non-member status, same level as the Vatican and an upgrade from their current “permanent observer" status[/QUOTE]
Well in the theoretical situation that a Palestinian state is established at the 1967 borders, I would say that a significant portion of the settlement population would voluntarily move back to Israel. I'm basing this off speculation though, no one really will know what will happen as there is no historical precedent for this sort of situation as far as I am aware of.
I think it's fairly reasonable, but since this involves Israel and it's underling (the US), I would say their proposal is pretty unreasonable. The 67' borders will never fly with those two, pessimistically speaking it seems pretty fruitless for them to include those borders in the proposal.
The border should stay as they are especially during the civil unrest in many nearby countries. It's nothing more then a safety concern, Israel should have all the rights to defend themselves. The six day war proves that even more.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32374981]They won’t be evicted. They’ll just become citizens and pledge to the Palestinian flag. Of course this is all hypothetical; the U.S. has already made it clear they’ll veto the Sept. 23rd resolution granting Palestine statehood.
So all they’d get is non-member status, same level as the Vatican and an upgrade from their current “permanent observer" status[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out, that you cannot enforce a citizenship on a person which they do not want. Likewise you cannot rob them of their natural citizenship without them accepting a different one or something akin to citizenship.
The only real exceptions are the genuine link clause and citizenship transformation after the dissolution or occupation of country. Which does not happen in this case.
At best you could offer the Israeli's living there an opting for Palestinian citizenship, which I doubt many would. Likewise considering the overall feel we get from there, none of the people would willingly move away. And in today's legal situation it would be very very tough to displace them.
[quote]
Well in the theoretical situation that a Palestinian state is established at the 1967 borders, I would say that a significant portion of the settlement population would voluntarily move back to Israel. I'm basing this off speculation though, no one really will know what will happen as there is no historical precedent for this sort of situation as far as I am aware of.
[/quote]
Poland
Sudetenland
and most likely a bunch of other examples.
All in all, once everything is is said and done, I'd say it's essentially impossible for a return to the borders of 67 in part due to Israel governing the area in complete effect since then.
The pretty sizeable population of Israelis there and other factors.
At best one might see a case in front of the ICJ which would probably shoot the proposition down pretty hard.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;32376758]The border should stay as they are especially during the civil unrest in many nearby countries. It's nothing more then a safety concern, Israel should have all the rights to defend themselves. The six day war proves that even more.[/QUOTE]
The right to defend themselves in land they took illegally?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32377423]The right to defend themselves in land they took illegally?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if they were signatories of the treaties at the time. But keep in mind even if they were, they did have pretext for occupying the area. And a defensive situation could still fly.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;32377487]I'm not sure if they were signatories of the treaties at the time. But keep in mind even if they were, they did have pretext for occupying the area. And a defensive situation could still fly.[/QUOTE]
No, I mean the settlements in the Palestinian territories, not land taken in the war. I personally believe that the land taken in the six-days war or the war of 1948 should be given back, but that's disputable. It isn't disputable that the settlements are illegal.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;32377487]I'm not sure if they were signatories of the treaties at the time. But keep in mind even if they were, they did have pretext for occupying the area. And a defensive situation could still fly.[/QUOTE]The key word they have here is ‘did’. No nation surrounding Israel is ever going to suddenly declare war. The new Egyptian regime already stated the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty is still valid and Jordan are allies with Israel. As for the rest, despite many Arab nations who claim not to “recognize” Israel, most of them do have special relations and ties with them. The world has also become so globalized that such a conflict is purely unrealistic.
Claims such as “it’s too late” to revert back to the ’67 borders are horseshit and this was what exactly Ariel Sharon dreamed of, this was his plan as he stated so in the '80s. To expand and make as much illegal settlements as possible, as fast as possible into Palestinian territory, so it’d either be difficult or impossible for ’67 borders to be a reality.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32377423]The right to defend themselves in land they took illegally?[/QUOTE]
They didn't take it illegally it was covered in the 1967 UN Resolution, Israel had the rights for more safe borders.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;32376758]The border should stay as they are especially during the civil unrest in many nearby countries. It's nothing more then a safety concern, Israel should have all the rights to defend themselves. The six day war proves that even more.[/QUOTE]“Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
“The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. ‘The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. ‘The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997.[This was one of many such proposals]
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;32378276]They didn't take it illegally it was covered in the 1967 UN Resolution, Israel had the rights for more safe borders.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to say that because the UN granted some land to Israel in 1967, that they were allowed to take as much as they saw fit?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32378468]Are you trying to say that because the UN granted some land to Israel in 1967, that they were allowed to take as much as they saw fit?[/QUOTE]Let's not forget that the same resolution he's referring to also called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories among other things which Israel has refused to do.
Reasonable, just not at this time.
Here is the Israeli argument for not reverting to the 67 borders:
[video=youtube;gJuwd50N-yU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJuwd50N-yU[/video]
[QUOTE=mac338;32380068]Here is the Israeli argument for not reverting to the 67 borders:
[video=youtube;gJuwd50N-yU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJuwd50N-yU[/video][/QUOTE]
This argument is fundamentally flawed as it essentially implies that Israel must be given borders that put it in a geographical and political box away from all its neighbors, and that it "allowed" Gaza to keep a border with Egypt and completely disregards the borders that were already set for the West Bank. This alone ignores the [B]illegal[/B] settlements and portrays them as "necessary for defense".
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
It basically suggests that Israel must have control over all Palestinian territory, for its own "defense".
[QUOTE=mac338;32380068]Here is the Israeli argument for not reverting to the 67 borders:
[video=youtube;gJuwd50N-yU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJuwd50N-yU[/video][/QUOTE] "The Arab armies crossing from Jordan[...]"
It attempts to paint the scene as if the Middle East may declare war with Israel at any moment despite the numerous peace treaties signed - its extremely exaggerating everything, but that's not my point.
The whole "Jordan river/West Bank" argument that Israel must secure in the event of "Arab armies crossing over Jordan" is the best part. Jordan is Israel's ally. To suggest scenarios how Jordan might attack Israel is nothing but fear-mongering.
To suggest that Israel must have complete and total military dominance over Palestinian land and all borders in order to avoid attack is ridiculous, and funny enough they'd probably be less likely to be attacked if they stopped encroaching on another nation's territory.
Arab nations attacked Israel in 1967. In [B]Self Defence[/B] they siezed the territory in self defence, and should not be forced to hand it to palestine, simply because palestine thinks they get bullied more. They were attacked. They defended themselves. In my opinion, that is it.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32381524']Arab nations attacked Israel in 1967. In [B]Self Defence[/B] they siezed the territory in self defence, and should not be forced to hand it to palestine, simply because palestine thinks they get bullied more. They were attacked. They defended themselves. In my opinion, that is it.[/QUOTE]
How does one seize territory in self-defense?
Here are the 1967 borders:
[img]http://israelseen.com/shows/Israel_Map1.gif[/img]
Here's what that left-most region (The West Bank) looks like now:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Palestine_Map_2007.gif[/t]
You mean to tell me that a region that was literally just fragmented during a war and then further encroached upon via settlements is fair? You mean to tell me it was done in "self-defense"? If so, you do not know the meaning of the word.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381650]How does one seize territory in self-defense?
Here are the 1967 borders:
[img]http://israelseen.com/shows/Israel_Map1.gif[/img]
Here's what that left-most region (The West Bank) looks like now:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Palestine_Map_2007.gif[/t]
You mean to tell me that a region that was literally just fragmented during a war and then further and encroached upon is fair? You mean to tell me it was done in "self-defense"? If so, you do not know the meaning of the word.[/QUOTE]
How does one sieze territory in self defence? Hmmmmm, well, the alternative would be an endless stalemate in every war ever, Was it wrong to take back land from germany, and take there land durring the world wars?
In old times, if someone attacked you, and you were stronger, you would completely take over there country. by some standards israel was even generous, not completely streamrolling Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32381683']How does one sieze territory in self defence? Hmmmmm, well, the alternative would be an endless stalemate in every war ever, Was it wrong to take back land from germany, and take there land durring the world wars?[/QUOTE]
Wrong to take back land they took from the French, in Europe? No, of course not. The difference there is that Israel is not taking back land they once owned (within a reasonable time frame, such as the same generation), they're taking land from a different country, that cannot be called self-defense.
Regardless of this, Jordan and Egypt have signed peace treaties with Israel, and Hamas is in a ceasefire despite Israel breaking said ceasefire numerous times. It is entirely unreasonable to make the argument that Israel must retain control of the Eastern West Bank for "self-defense", as such an implication pretty much means they should have control of the entire region for their own "self-defense".
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381784](within a reasonable time frame, such as the same generation)[/QUOTE]
this is where the legitimacy of Israel claims starts to fall apart.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Islam, like, colonize the place and started a state of terror on Palestine ?
How the hell are they in their rights ? If Europeans couldn't do it without trouble until last century I don't see why they should have any right to do that shit.
Well Islam has been in the area for ever a thousand years more or less. The jewish state in it's current iteration is very new.
It's also fairly unique in the way, that when most nationalistic states were formed, they were purely formed geographically with the people living there. Or at least by large and wide.
Israel had a fairly massive population shift towards it. Which in some cases probably prompted some of the muslim aggression against it.
While I do not historically condone their long term actions of keeping the territory under their control, the truth is, that there is no way these days one could expect them to or ask them to retreat behind them again.
In part due to fairly large amounts of money that was invested into the area, the population living there and other factors. A lot also depends on just how much sovereignity the PA has on the areas it controls. If it's at least semi decent, then you have a pro-Israel argument.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;32391170]Well Islam has been in the area for ever a thousand years more or less. The jewish state in it's current iteration is very new.
It's also fairly unique in the way, that when most nationalistic states were formed, they were purely formed geographically with the people living there. Or at least by large and wide.
Israel had a fairly massive population shift towards it. Which in some cases probably prompted some of the muslim aggression against it.
While I do not historically condone their long term actions of keeping the territory under their control, the truth is, that there is no way these days one could expect them to or ask them to retreat behind them again.
In part due to fairly large amounts of money that was invested into the area, the population living there and other factors. A lot also depends on just how much sovereignity the PA has on the areas it controls. If it's at least semi decent, then you have a pro-Israel argument.[/QUOTE]
tbh it was their decision to invest their money into that area before it was fully decided whose land it was.
It's like you're arguing over who gets a certain desk in the office, and one person just plunks their computer on it and sets it up, and says it's theirs. Then they say "oh, well, I put it there and it's been like that for a while, so I can't move it"
not the best analogy but you get the idea.
A more correct analogy is - you set a small office up, then two of your colleagues with bigger offices barge in and want your office as well. You push them out and take control of the small anteroom next to your office and put a secretary in there. But leave a secretary working on a completely different agenda in there as well, just tell her she has to keep to your closing hours. otherwise can do her job in peace.
A while later your boss comes along is surprised by the scene and goes back to the office allocation board.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;32391170]Well Islam has been in the area for ever a thousand years more or less. The jewish state in it's current iteration is very new.
It's also fairly unique in the way, that when most nationalistic states were formed, they were purely formed geographically with the people living there. Or at least by large and wide.
Israel had a fairly massive population shift towards it. Which in some cases probably prompted some of the muslim aggression against it.
While I do not historically condone their long term actions of keeping the territory under their control, the truth is, that there is no way these days one could expect them to or ask them to retreat behind them again.
In part due to fairly large amounts of money that was invested into the area, the population living there and other factors. A lot also depends on just how much sovereignity the PA has on the areas it controls. If it's at least semi decent, then you have a pro-Israel argument.[/QUOTE]
Last time someone claimed back the part of a country his nation used to own it turned into world war 2.
The answer of "my father put his left toe for two seconds in that land three thousand years ago, I want it back" is weak, stupid and arrogant. Things change, the world evolve, you can't suddenly decide to build frontiers based on what you think it looked like three millenniums ago.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.