{Originally posted to the author’s website, FirstOne Through}
The argument that using the “1967 lines” as the basis for the borders of Israel and Palestine in a two-state solution is flawed at the outset. “Land swaps” simply underscore that absurdity of the argument.
Obama on Israel-Palestine Borders
In May 2011, US President Barack Obama shared his thoughts on the contours of the ultimate borders of Israel and Palestine in a two-state solution: “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
The comment infuriated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel advocates. Obama clarified his comments before a pro-Israel group a few days later: “By definition, it means that the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967… it allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years…. Including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides.”
Obama’s second statement moved away from his comments about “1967 lines.” By stating that the border would be arrived at through mutual negotiations and look “different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” Obama made the comment about the 1967 lines moot. If the parties agree to an entirely new construct for borders, than that would be acceptable too. There is no reason to even mention the “1967 lines” or land swaps.
But the left-wing group J Street was much more aggressive than Obama on the contours of Israel, and lobbied the US government about the 1967 lines and land swaps.
J Street on Israel-Palestine Borders
J Street clearly calls for a two-state solution to be based on the 1967 lines with land swaps as detailed on its site: “This border will be based on the pre-1967 Green Line, with equivalent swaps of land… land of equivalent quantity and quality will be swapped from within the pre-1967 Green Line.”
The group also urged the US government and Jewish groups to strongly condemn any Jews living east of the Green Line (EGL/West Bank). More specificaly, J Street stated:
“J Street is deeply concerned that the pre-1967 Green Line separating Israel and the occupied territory is being effectively erased both on the ground and in the consciousness of Israelis, Jews and others around the world.
The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require establishing a border through negotiations between Israel and the new state of Palestine – based, as noted previously, on the pre-1967 Green Line with adjustments. Until that border is negotiated, the Green Line remains the internationally-recognized separation between the state of Israel and the territory won in the Six Day War in 1967.
A disturbing and growing lack of awareness of the Green Line is partially responsible for the 47-year occupation fading from the consciousness of the Israeli and international Jewish publics. Efforts to erase the Green Line from maps and from public awareness serve the interests only of those who seek to establish control over all the territory to the Jordan River.
One step American community groups, businesses, schools and governments could take to foster memory of the distinction between pre-1967 Israel and the subsequently occupied territory would be to use only maps that include the pre-1967 Green Line – a visual reminder of the Green Line and its significance.”
All of J Street’s arguments: negotiations based on 1967 lines; equivalent swaps of land; and using equivalent “quality” are all illogical. The desire to push the US government to punish Israel was demonic.
The Illogic of “Land Swaps”
There are a number of issues regarding using the 1967 lines and subsequent land swaps as envisioned by J Street.
The 1967 Lines Rewards Aggression. Using the 1967 lines as a starting point for negotiations rewards aggression. When Israel declared itself as an independent state in 1948, it was immediately attacked by five Arab armies from Egypt; Jordan; Syria; Lebanon; and Iraq. The 1967 lines were the Armistice Lines where the warring parties stopped fighting in 1949.
Imagine that Egypt conquered the entire southern part of Israel, all of the way up until Bethlehem, and Jordan conquered the entire eastern part of the country, leaving Israel as a narrow sliver of coastline from Tel Aviv to Rosh Hanikra. Consequently, imagine that it is this small state becomes recognized by the United Nations in 1949, within Armistice Lines with Egypt and Jordan.
Further consider that history played out precisely as it did: in 1967 the Arab armies once again threatened to destroy Israel, so Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt and Syria and then Jordan attacked Israel. Egypt and Jordan lost all of the territory that it took from the 1922 Palestine Mandate for a Jewish homeland in the war.
How would the world react? Would the world demand that Israel needs to return to a stub of a state and give Egypt and Jordan all of the land past the 1949 Armistice Lines? Even if Egypt and Jordan ultimately relinquished their claims to the land in favor of Palestinian Arabs, would those borders somehow be considered the appropriate borders for Israel and Palestine?
Of course not.
Pushing Israel to accept the borders that the UN endorsed in 1949 would be rewarding the five Arab armies assault on Israel. The areas within the Jewish homeland mandate that are someone ensconsed as “Arab land,” are simply lands that were seized by Arab aggression. Using such 1967 lines/ the 1949 Armistice Lines, is a direct reward to an aggressive war to destroy the Jewish State.
Land Swaps Acknowledges that 1967 Lines are not Borders. Those parties that suggest that land swaps between Israel and a future Palestinian state should take place inherently admit that the 1967 lines have no merit. How could anyone suggest that a sovereign nation (Israel) give up some of its own land? How could a country annex land of another country (Palestine)? It can do so, if the two parties both acknowledge that the lines are not borders.
This was clearly spelled out in the Armistice Agreement with Egypt that stated “[t]he Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.” Similarly, the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan which stated “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”
While J Street urges Israel and Jewish groups to “know its boundaries,” the actual suggestion to engage in land swaps undermines the J Street argument that the 1967 lines have any real significance. If there is any doubt, the Armistice Agreements that created those specific Armistice Lines stated those lines were not borders.
Land Swaps Undermine a call to limit Jewish “Settlements.” J Street and other groups that suggest that no Jewish Israelis should be allowed to live east of the Green Line (EGL/ West Bank), undermine their own argument when they suggest that there should be land swaps. If Israel should give over some of its land west of the Green Line to a future Palestinian State, that would mean that Jews should also be prohibited from living in those border areas in Israel too. Swapping land means that those Jewish communities in Israel would be considered a similar threat towards peace as the “settlements” in EGL/West Bank.
If people really believe that Jewish communities threaten the viability of a Palestinian State, the same parties that argue for banning Israelis in EGL/West Bank should argue similarly argue against Jewish communities in Israel that threaten the ability to effectively conclude land swaps.
That suggestion is clearly absurd.
Therefore if it is not a problem for Jews to move into communities that are west of the Green Line, than it is not an issue for Jews to move east of the Green Line.
Phantom Size. The suggestion that the exact number of square kilometers of the “West Bank” and Gaza that were created by the 1949 Armistice Lines is somehow a sacred amount is ridiculuous. As described above, the “West Bank” was an artifice created by a war of Arab aggression against Israel in 1948. There is/was nothing inherently special about where the warring parties stopped fighting.
It is therefore non-sensical to suggest that the “equivalent quantity”of land be exchanged between the parties.
Further Absurdity of “Equivalent Quality.” J Street outdid itself in promoting a concept that went beyond the illogical suggestions of the 1967 lines land swaps. It proposed that the land swaps between Israel and the Palestinian Authority should be based on land of “equivalent quality.” In other words, J Street did not propose that there be a swap of 50 square km on one side of the Green Line for 50km on the other side. J Street introduced the concept of “quality.” The far left-wing group argued that desert land would not be equivalent to an aquifer. Holy land would not be equivalent to non-Holy land.
What is the conversion factor between the different types of land? Who knows! Just add some subjective requirements to simplify negotiations that are already going nowhere for decades and are illogical at the start. That should speed things up!
When people pick on Obama for being anti-Israel, they should consider his rather moderate stance compared to the advice he receives from J Street.
Related First.One.Through articles:
J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS
The Left-Wing’s Two State Solution: 1.5 States for Arabs, 0.5 for Jews
The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues
Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough
Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis