Expansionism Abroad - Discussion

Since posting my my commentary,"Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad," I have had four exchanges - one relating to hostage-taking and three relating to expansionism abroad. I am posting them in four separate posts.

This is the second.

Robert Malchman Esq. of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

"The reason there was an outcry over Obama' s 1967 borders comment is that he phrased it really badly. He's now had to go to AIPAC to clarify what he meant.

I agree that what he meant is not and should not be controversial, but the way he initially said it made it sound like the pre-'67 borders were the "starting point," i.e., should be taken as the status quo from which Israel would have to negotiate concessions to keep certain parts of the occupied territories. I assume you don't believe Israel should hand back the Golan Heights, which would put a knife to northern Israel's throat in the hands of the mad dictator Assad? Or that East Jerusalem, which is now open to people of all faiths, should be returned to its pre-'67 status as closed off to Jews by an Arab government? The "starting point" is the current borders, from which the Arabs can negotiate concessions from Israel, such as by recognizing its right to exist and ceasing their support for terror attacks. That's what Obama should have said."

I responded:

I don't think the facts support your conclusion. In his first speech the President said: "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." Nothing could have been clearer. The problem arose, not from any lack of clarity on the part of the President, but from the deliberate mis-representations which followed. This prompted unnecessary further clarification before AIPAC.

Of course the '67 borders must be the starting point. Otherwise what is the starting point. The end-point envisioned is the swaps that would alter that border to allow the facts on the ground to be taken into account. Thus the '67 borders are the starting point and the negotiated deviations therefrom are the end point. That has always been envisioned, and the only reason that it caused an outcry is that Netanyahu is no longer satisfied with this, now wanting to annex the whole West Bank, or at least most of it. It is the dream of the settlers and the religious fanatic to make all of "Samaria' and "Judea' part of Greater Israel. That is outrageous, and Republican support for that position shows their total lack of respect for human rights. Such a position cannot bring peace and if successful would crowd Palestinians into even worse conditions than they live in now, and/or would disenfranchise them within a greater Israel or would create an apartheid state, or would result in ethnic cleansing. Certainly letting a Palestinians majority vote in Israel is not, nor should it be envisioned.

The Golan Heights were clearly not part of the paradigm, since we are talking about negotiations with the Palestinians and not the Syrians so that does not enter into the equation and no one other than you has suggested that this is relevant here. As for "East Jerusalem" that is again part of the negotiations. But a distinction must be drawn between that part of Jerusalem which has always been part of Jerusalem and the Arab outskirts which Netanyahu is trying to annex to Jerusalem by what is already ethnic cleansing and which in previous negotiations by Ehud Barak were in fact to be ceded to the new Arab state, to be used as its capital.

If the starting point is the current borders than what is being negotiated is how much more than what has already been occupied should be ceded by the Arabs, rather than what has always been envisioned, i.e. that for Israel to keep most of its current settlement blocks, it must cede an equal amount of territory, to be agreed upon. Even the "clarification rejected this when Obama repeated, "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" and added, "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."

As for Jerusalem, I was amused when Israel was asked to stop expanding its settlements around Jerusalem, Netanyahu declared "Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital." Of course Jerusalem is not a settlement and that that was not the point. The issue was the growing settlements in Arab territory adjoining Jerusalem, and the Arab eviction from such territory. But it should be noted that even the question of Jerusalem being Israel's capital has not been recognized by a single country in the world. Not a single country including the US has its embassy in Jerusalem.

If you feel that Israel should take even more territory form the Palestinians than it already has, than we simply disagree!!!

Allow me to add that there has a great deal of misunderstanding regarding East Jerusalem because of very poor press reporting.

The term East Jerusalem is misleading and may be used to refer to either of the following:

-From 1948 to 1967 it referred to the 6.4 km (2.5 sq. mi) Jordanian part of the city, just as “West Jerusalem” referred to the Israeli part of the city.

-In June 1967, after the war, Israel de facto annexed some 70 km (27 sq. mi) including not only Jordanian Jerusalem but also 64 km (25 sq. mi) from the West Bank, including territory which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala and included them in the expanded municipal boundary of West Jerusalem, making it the largest city in the Israel.

The term “East Jerusalem” may be applied to the area of the expanded Jerusalem that was captured by Israel in 1967, which lies north, east and south of the former East Jerusalem.

I am against Israel giving up any part of Jerusalem proper including that part of "East Jerusalem" which had been occupied by Jordan before the '67 war.
But the 25 sq. miles which were never part of Jerusalem and were taken from the West Bank and which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala were never part of historic Jerusalem, are occupied mostly by Arabs except for those who have been expelled, and should be ceded to a Palestinian state to form its capital under the pseudo name of Jerusalem or East Jerusalem. I haver  never understood the determination to expand the holy city of Jerusalem beyond its traditional boundaries where no Jewish holy places are located, and which have never been occupied by Jews.