So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[RoccoR]

rhodescholar, et al,

The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.

03/26/1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty
10/26/1994 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

Why?

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?

(COMMENT)

The answer to the question as to: "Why don't we call them the 1949 borders?" It is somewhat political and somewhat a crafty attempt to roll-back the clock.

First, the 1949 Armistice Lines are essentially the same as what we call the pre-1967 Borders.

The pre-1967 Boundaries (the original 1949 Armistice Lines) do not take into account the territories conceded in the Peace Treaties of the land taken during the subsequent conflicts in which the Arab Nations were the aggressors.

The entire reason for the Arab insistence on the Pre-1967 Borders is to reset the 1967-1973 War outcomes to a point before the Arab Loss. If the Israelis accept this, the Palestinians will gain total control of Jerusalem, and set the conditions for the Arab Militaries to cut Israel in half along the axis of the 32ºN to the 32º 30'N Parallels where the line of march is merely 9 to 11 miles (at a combat advance of armor 5 MPH - that is a 2 Hour to the Mediterranean Beach). Using Russian Armed Assault Gunship / Attack Helicopter any penetration could have fires in place and on Tel Aviv in less that 4 minutes.

Those indefensible 1967 borders
The Economist -- Democracy in America
May 23rd 2011, 13:08 BY M.S.

US Military Chiefs Advised Against Judea-Samaria Pullout in '67
Declassified document obtained by Arutz Sheva shows Joint Chiefs agreed Israel must not give up Judea, Samaria.

The Arab idea, and the danger to Israel, is that a complete withdrawal from Samaria and Judea would allow the West Bank to put in place a complete artillery line on the long axis (north to south) of the Central Mountains that could cover the entire mid-section of Israel (no defense at all).

That is why the Hostile Arab Palestinians want the pre-1967 borders conceded before any negotiations for Peace begins. The know that once the Israelis give up their ability to defend Israel, it will only be a matter of time before the Jewish State is militarily defeated and collapses.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Official Says Palestine Territory Spans from the ‘River to the Sea’ — Guess What That Means
The Blaze, Jun. 13, 2013 8:28am Sharona Schwartz

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.” This includes all of the territory in Israel, including all of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared as its capital, all of Tel Aviv, where the United States embassy sits, all of Haifa and Nazareth in the north, Beersheba and Eilat in the south. Rajoub’s “occupied lands” also covers Hamas-ruled Gaza from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Compiled by Paul Bogdanor

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)
​

The threat has not changed since the defeat of the Arab League Forces, the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army in 1949. And as we enter the 21st Century, the strategy has not changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Well done R

I've always found it odd that Israel's use of the area set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland is referred to as an occupation. Wasn't this area designated by the British as being available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and isn't this exactly what the Israeli's are doing while at the same time doing everything in their power to share the land with a hostile Arab people. Patiently waiting for the hostilities to end so life can move forward ?

The 67 borders were never accepted by the Arab nations. So why all the fuss ? Neither were the 49 borders. It wasn't until very recently that demands of "returning" land ( land that was never theirs in the first place ) have popped up. The simple reality is it seems like just another ploy to destabilize the Israeli position.

 

[P F Tinmore]

rhodescholar, et al,

The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.

03/26/1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty
10/26/1994 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

Why?

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?

(COMMENT)

The answer to the question as to: "Why don't we call them the 1949 borders?" It is somewhat political and somewhat a crafty attempt to roll-back the clock.

First, the 1949 Armistice Lines are essentially the same as what we call the pre-1967 Borders.

The pre-1967 Boundaries (the original 1949 Armistice Lines) do not take into account the territories conceded in the Peace Treaties of the land taken during the subsequent conflicts in which the Arab Nations were the aggressors.

The entire reason for the Arab insistence on the Pre-1967 Borders is to reset the 1967-1973 War outcomes to a point before the Arab Loss. If the Israelis accept this, they will gain total control of Jerusalem, and set the conditions for the Arab Militaries to cut Israel in half along the axis of the 32ºN to the 32º 30'N Parallels where the line of march is merely 9 to 11 miles (at a combat advance of armor 5 MPH - that is a 2 Hour to the Mediterranean Beach). Using Russian Armed Assault Gunship / Attack Helicopter any penetration could have fires in place and on Tel Aviv in less that 4 minutes.

Those indefensible 1967 borders
The Economist -- Democracy in America
May 23rd 2011, 13:08 BY M.S.

US Military Chiefs Advised Against Judea-Samaria Pullout in '67
Declassified document obtained by Arutz Sheva shows Joint Chiefs agreed Israel must not give up Judea, Samaria.

View attachment 57918​

The Arab idea, and the danger to Israel, is that a complete withdrawal from Samaria and Judea would allow the West Bank to put in place a complete artillery line on the long axis (north to south) of the Central Mountains that could cover the entire mid-section of Israel (no defense at all).

That is why the Hostile Arab Palestinians want the pre-1967 borders conceded before any negotiations for Peace begins. The know that once the Israelis give up their ability to defend Israel, it will only be a matter of time before the Jewish State is militarily defeated and collapses.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Official Says Palestine Territory Spans from the ‘River to the Sea’ — Guess What That Means
The Blaze, Jun. 13, 2013 8:28am Sharona Schwartz

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.” This includes all of the territory in Israel, including all of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared as its capital, all of Tel Aviv, where the United States embassy sits, all of Haifa and Nazareth in the north, Beersheba and Eilat in the south. Rajoub’s “occupied lands” also covers Hamas-ruled Gaza from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Compiled by Paul Bogdanor

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)
​

The threat has not changed since the defeat of the Arab League Forces, the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army in 1949. And as we enter the 21st Century, the strategy has not changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.”​

Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.

 

[Boston1]

Which confirms my assertions that no Jewish controlled area is acceptable to the Arabs of this area.

Its blatant bigotry and prejudice

The Judaic people, the indigenous people of this area have every right to one small slice. Why the Arabs can't be satisfied with their 99.9% isn't much of a mystery. Its blatant prejudice and bigotry

 

[Hollie]

rhodescholar, et al,

The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.

03/26/1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty
10/26/1994 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

Why?

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?

(COMMENT)

The answer to the question as to: "Why don't we call them the 1949 borders?" It is somewhat political and somewhat a crafty attempt to roll-back the clock.

First, the 1949 Armistice Lines are essentially the same as what we call the pre-1967 Borders.

The pre-1967 Boundaries (the original 1949 Armistice Lines) do not take into account the territories conceded in the Peace Treaties of the land taken during the subsequent conflicts in which the Arab Nations were the aggressors.

The entire reason for the Arab insistence on the Pre-1967 Borders is to reset the 1967-1973 War outcomes to a point before the Arab Loss. If the Israelis accept this, they will gain total control of Jerusalem, and set the conditions for the Arab Militaries to cut Israel in half along the axis of the 32ºN to the 32º 30'N Parallels where the line of march is merely 9 to 11 miles (at a combat advance of armor 5 MPH - that is a 2 Hour to the Mediterranean Beach). Using Russian Armed Assault Gunship / Attack Helicopter any penetration could have fires in place and on Tel Aviv in less that 4 minutes.

Those indefensible 1967 borders
The Economist -- Democracy in America
May 23rd 2011, 13:08 BY M.S.

US Military Chiefs Advised Against Judea-Samaria Pullout in '67
Declassified document obtained by Arutz Sheva shows Joint Chiefs agreed Israel must not give up Judea, Samaria.

View attachment 57918​

The Arab idea, and the danger to Israel, is that a complete withdrawal from Samaria and Judea would allow the West Bank to put in place a complete artillery line on the long axis (north to south) of the Central Mountains that could cover the entire mid-section of Israel (no defense at all).

That is why the Hostile Arab Palestinians want the pre-1967 borders conceded before any negotiations for Peace begins. The know that once the Israelis give up their ability to defend Israel, it will only be a matter of time before the Jewish State is militarily defeated and collapses.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Official Says Palestine Territory Spans from the ‘River to the Sea’ — Guess What That Means
The Blaze, Jun. 13, 2013 8:28am Sharona Schwartz

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.” This includes all of the territory in Israel, including all of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared as its capital, all of Tel Aviv, where the United States embassy sits, all of Haifa and Nazareth in the north, Beersheba and Eilat in the south. Rajoub’s “occupied lands” also covers Hamas-ruled Gaza from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Compiled by Paul Bogdanor

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)
​

The threat has not changed since the defeat of the Arab League Forces, the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army in 1949. And as we enter the 21st Century, the strategy has not changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.”​

Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.

A member of the Fatah franchise of Islamic Terrorism Intl., Inc., is making those bellicose claims?

Have him forward that in a strongly worded email to the IDF.

Not to throw the brakes on that runaway train of heady islamo-cluelessness but I'm thinking that Jibrill (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Dead Man Walking Central Committee) Rajoub is going to quickly become acquainted with an expression commonly directed to such pompous islamo-whining: pffffft.

 

[P F Tinmore]

rhodescholar, et al,

The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.

03/26/1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty
10/26/1994 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

Why?

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?

(COMMENT)

The answer to the question as to: "Why don't we call them the 1949 borders?" It is somewhat political and somewhat a crafty attempt to roll-back the clock.

First, the 1949 Armistice Lines are essentially the same as what we call the pre-1967 Borders.

The pre-1967 Boundaries (the original 1949 Armistice Lines) do not take into account the territories conceded in the Peace Treaties of the land taken during the subsequent conflicts in which the Arab Nations were the aggressors.

The entire reason for the Arab insistence on the Pre-1967 Borders is to reset the 1967-1973 War outcomes to a point before the Arab Loss. If the Israelis accept this, they will gain total control of Jerusalem, and set the conditions for the Arab Militaries to cut Israel in half along the axis of the 32ºN to the 32º 30'N Parallels where the line of march is merely 9 to 11 miles (at a combat advance of armor 5 MPH - that is a 2 Hour to the Mediterranean Beach). Using Russian Armed Assault Gunship / Attack Helicopter any penetration could have fires in place and on Tel Aviv in less that 4 minutes.

Those indefensible 1967 borders
The Economist -- Democracy in America
May 23rd 2011, 13:08 BY M.S.

US Military Chiefs Advised Against Judea-Samaria Pullout in '67
Declassified document obtained by Arutz Sheva shows Joint Chiefs agreed Israel must not give up Judea, Samaria.

View attachment 57918​

The Arab idea, and the danger to Israel, is that a complete withdrawal from Samaria and Judea would allow the West Bank to put in place a complete artillery line on the long axis (north to south) of the Central Mountains that could cover the entire mid-section of Israel (no defense at all).

That is why the Hostile Arab Palestinians want the pre-1967 borders conceded before any negotiations for Peace begins. The know that once the Israelis give up their ability to defend Israel, it will only be a matter of time before the Jewish State is militarily defeated and collapses.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Official Says Palestine Territory Spans from the ‘River to the Sea’ — Guess What That Means
The Blaze, Jun. 13, 2013 8:28am Sharona Schwartz

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.” This includes all of the territory in Israel, including all of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared as its capital, all of Tel Aviv, where the United States embassy sits, all of Haifa and Nazareth in the north, Beersheba and Eilat in the south. Rajoub’s “occupied lands” also covers Hamas-ruled Gaza from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Compiled by Paul Bogdanor

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)
​

The threat has not changed since the defeat of the Arab League Forces, the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army in 1949. And as we enter the 21st Century, the strategy has not changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.”​

Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.

A member of the Fatah franchise of Islamic Terrorism Intl., Inc., is making those bellicose claims?

Have him forward that in a strongly worded email to the IDF.

Not to throw the brakes on that runaway train of heady islamo-cluelessness but I'm thinking that Jibrill (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Dead Man Walking Central Committee) Rajoub is going to quickly become acquainted with an expression commonly directed to such pompous islamo-whining: pffffft.

There is the proof right there.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

Yes, I agree --- anything west of the Dead Sea/Jordan River, was simply territory surrendered to that Allied Powers.

I've always found it odd that Israel's use of the area set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland is referred to as an occupation. Wasn't this area designated by the British as being available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and isn't this exactly what the Israeli's are doing while at the same time doing everything in their power to share the land with a hostile Arab people. Patiently waiting for the hostilities to end so life can move forward ?

The 67 borders were never accepted by the Arab nations. So why all the fuss ? Neither were the 49 borders. It wasn't until very recently that demands of "returning" land ( land that was never theirs in the first place ) have popped up. The simple reality is it seems like just another ploy to destabilize the Israeli position.

(COMMENT)

And just as the Treaty of Lausanne said:

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

I find almost impossible to believe that Pro-Palestinians did not understand the customary laws of the day. But clearly, the Arab Palestinians were not a "concerned party" except as the people of the enemy Occupied Territory between 1918-1920, and then a people of the territory to which the Mandate applied. Sovereignty and Independence, whatever else was said, was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers could have carved-up the territory any way that served them.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

The "proof" is manifested in the "reality" of the day

................

................

(QUESTION)

The question as to which country hold the territory is the starting point.

What does Israel have control --- such that it denies the Palestinian the rights of 1988 self-determination???

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Shusha]

It doesn't have to be. It's home to an indigenous population of Arabs and they have an inalienable right to self determination.

It is home to TWO indigenous populations. They both have the inalienable right to self-determination. They were both given self-determination with the creation of Jordan and Israel. But the Arab collective refuses to accept a Jewish national homeland.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

The "proof" is manifested in the "reality" of the day

................

................

(QUESTION)

The question as to which country hold the territory is the starting point.

What does Israel have control --- such that it denies the Palestinian the rights of 1988 self-determination???

Most Respectfully,
R

​

I think the answer is addressed in the Hamas Charter with all the areas in question being viewed as a waqf: an entitlement to Moslems. The Hamas Charter uses that term specifically.

At its core, this is a religious war as viewed by Islamists.

 

[Boston1]

My personal take on palestinian rights of self determination are similar to my take on the rights of anyones self determination. Those rights are given up once illegal acts are committed. Murder and terrorism are certainly illegal acts.

Now if you want to consider it a war, then I think Israel is being damn lenient.

 

[rhodescholar]

rhodescholar, et al,

The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.

03/26/1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty
10/26/1994 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

Why?

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?

(COMMENT)

The answer to the question as to: "Why don't we call them the 1949 borders?" It is somewhat political and somewhat a crafty attempt to roll-back the clock.

First, the 1949 Armistice Lines are essentially the same as what we call the pre-1967 Borders.

The pre-1967 Boundaries (the original 1949 Armistice Lines) do not take into account the territories conceded in the Peace Treaties of the land taken during the subsequent conflicts in which the Arab Nations were the aggressors.

The entire reason for the Arab insistence on the Pre-1967 Borders is to reset the 1967-1973 War outcomes to a point before the Arab Loss. If the Israelis accept this, the Palestinians will gain total control of Jerusalem, and set the conditions for the Arab Militaries to cut Israel in half along the axis of the 32ºN to the 32º 30'N Parallels where the line of march is merely 9 to 11 miles (at a combat advance of armor 5 MPH - that is a 2 Hour to the Mediterranean Beach). Using Russian Armed Assault Gunship / Attack Helicopter any penetration could have fires in place and on Tel Aviv in less that 4 minutes.

Those indefensible 1967 borders
The Economist -- Democracy in America
May 23rd 2011, 13:08 BY M.S.

US Military Chiefs Advised Against Judea-Samaria Pullout in '67
Declassified document obtained by Arutz Sheva shows Joint Chiefs agreed Israel must not give up Judea, Samaria.

View attachment 57918​

The Arab idea, and the danger to Israel, is that a complete withdrawal from Samaria and Judea would allow the West Bank to put in place a complete artillery line on the long axis (north to south) of the Central Mountains that could cover the entire mid-section of Israel (no defense at all).

That is why the Hostile Arab Palestinians want the pre-1967 borders conceded before any negotiations for Peace begins. The know that once the Israelis give up their ability to defend Israel, it will only be a matter of time before the Jewish State is militarily defeated and collapses.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Official Says Palestine Territory Spans from the ‘River to the Sea’ — Guess What That Means
The Blaze, Jun. 13, 2013 8:28am Sharona Schwartz

Jibrill Rajoub (a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee) now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.” This includes all of the territory in Israel, including all of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared as its capital, all of Tel Aviv, where the United States embassy sits, all of Haifa and Nazareth in the north, Beersheba and Eilat in the south. Rajoub’s “occupied lands” also covers Hamas-ruled Gaza from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Compiled by Paul Bogdanor

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)
​

The threat has not changed since the defeat of the Arab League Forces, the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army in 1949. And as we enter the 21st Century, the strategy has not changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.

 

[Weatherman2020]

2/3 Palestinians support stabbing Jews and 80% reject a 2 State solution. That's from a Palestinian poll.

You can't have peace with evil savages.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is home to TWO indigenous populations. They both have the inalienable right to self-determination. They were both given self-determination with the creation of Jordan and Israel. But the Arab collective refuses to accept a Jewish national homeland.

Yes and no.

Yes, there are two indigenous populations:

• Palestinian-Arabs
• Palestinian-Jews

And they both have the right to self determination.

No, many Arab leaders (including Hamas) have publically stated they'll accept a two state solution. Israel doesn't want peace.

If Israel wanted peace, they wouldn't be breaking all the ceasefires.

 

[Billo_Really]

My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.

They're living in the place their forefathers came from and they're not going anywhere.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

 

[jillian]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

you don't get '67 borders after repeatedly waging war and losing.

*shrug*

and they aren't "occupied". they just refuse to govern themselves.

 

[jillian]

My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.

They're living in the place their forefathers came from and they're not going anywhere.

their "forefathers" didn't come from israel. and people throughout history have been moved around. funny the terrorist supporting jew haters only whine about israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

The "proof" is manifested in the "reality" of the day

................

................

(QUESTION)

The question as to which country hold the territory is the starting point.

What does Israel have control --- such that it denies the Palestinian the rights of 1988 self-determination???

Most Respectfully,
R

​

1988 is late in the game.