If not the Green Line, then what line should be the Israel-Palestine border?

Great Debates
1

(Couldn’t get any straight answer to this in this thread, so here goes.)

There are 350,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, not counting East Jerusalem (210,000 Israeli settlers live there). (Map here – Israeli settlements in magenta.) There are 2.3 million Palestinians in the WB. Short of either (1) genocide or ethnic-cleansing-by-deportation, or (2) a one-state solution that would threaten Israel’s character as a “Jewish State,” the Israelis are never going to make the WB their own.

Do Israelis generally accept this or not?

Obama has called for an independent Palestine “based on” (which at least allows for wiggle room) the 1967 border, i.e., the “Green Line.” Netanyahu says that border is “indefensible.” (Nor does he mention the Wall as an alternative border.) Specifically, he says:

:dubious: Really, Bibi? Seems to me the only relevant “changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the past 44 years” are the settlements. It also seems to me that any border would be defensible, at least by the Israelis. It will be a long, long time before independent Palestine has an army that matters, compared to the IDF. (And don’t try to tell me Israelis are still scared of the Syrians, or the Jordanians, or even (even now) the Egyptians.) But no border will be defensible if the definition is, “enemies can’t shell or rocket Israeli territory from the other side of it.”

Old Jewish joke:

Golda picks up a broken fork at the flea market. “How much?”

“A penny,” Smulowitz answers.

“A penny!” Golda grumbles. “Too much!”

“So make me an offer.”

So, Bibi – or any Doper who thinks the Green Line is not a defensible Israel-Palestine border: Make me an offer. What border would be defensible? Draw us a line on the map and tell us why it’s appropriate and we’ll go from there.

2

Certainly Israel needs to be concerned about Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Perhaps not in the immediate future, of perhaps the next half a century. But nations need to plan for the longer stretch. A century from now. Two centuries. Some of the crusader states lasted around two centuries. Israel still needs to manage one and a half centuries to outdo them. And with a bunch of wars and general hostility in the short time it has existed, any Israeli leader would be extremely negligent if he did not do his best to secure the long-time interests of Israel.

The borders should be drawn in such a way that they account for the people living in the areas. If there is a Jewish settlement close to the old green-line that wish to be part of Israel, then they should be so, and if there is a concentration of Palestinians close to the old green-line that wish to be part of a Palestinian state then they should be so. And Jews living on the West-Bank in areas that lies too removed from the rest of Israel, must be given security by a Palestinian state, and full democratic, economic and political rights. And Palestinians living too far removed from the rest of Palestine to be part of a Palestinian state – or who don’t wish to become part of a Palestinian state – must be secured by the Israeli state and given full democratic, economic and political rights. In exchange they, Jews in Palestine, and Palestinians in Israel must swear allegiance to the state they find themselves living in and be expected to serve in the armed forces and in other ways do the things expected of citizens. If they cannot do this, then they must move.

3

Technically, he said, “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.”, which, frankly, has been US policy for quite a while, and has been Israeli government policy for some time.

But, ok, here’s my proposal. The border along the Green Line basically, but also including East Jerusalem and some of the larger, closer settlement blocks. like Modi’in Illit, Ma’ale Adumim, Beitar Illit and Ariel.

But here’s what it comes down to, ultimately. When people say the old border wasn’t “defensible”, what you need to keep in mind is that Israel, at its narrowest point, is ten miles wide, and that makes it very easy for an enemy army to cut the country in half.

4

And…?

Even if the Palestinians all disappeared, and all the territory at hand was unambiguously Israeli, it would still be a small country, unable to count on vastnesses of land or sea to logistically impede invaders.

Regardless of any possible territorial adjustments, Israel’s future security will be found first in the quality of its relations with its neighbors, secondarily in the quality of its own armed forces.

5

And thirdly, as always, in the support of its allies. And fourthly in the incompetence of its neighbors. Israel has always been surrounded by nations who do not like its existence and who could destroy it any time they got their act together – but, somehow, they never can.

6

If the line wouldn’t be defensible as an officially-recognized international border, then how is it defensible now? It’s still the same set of people on the other side of it, and there are still a significant number of people on that side of the line who wish Israel harm.

7

From your first two sentences, I thought you were leading up to saying that presumably both sides should realize that they’re never going to get all of the West Bank.

If the two parties ever get to the point of enough mutual trust that they’re actually negotiating, then drawing a line can be relatively easy. Israel gives up the smaller settlements but keeps the larger ones and East Jerusalem, and in return it pays the Palestinians something – say, development funds for 20 years to build Ramallah into a major capital. No-visa access to East Jerusalem in five years if security holds up, and negotiations toward free trade. But the two sides can’t even get to the point of beginning that process.

8

It’s not size that determines which settlements need to go, it’s location: The further east, the more likely to be dismantled.

9

It’s probably a combination of both. The bigger the settlement, the more disruptive and politically difficult it’ll be to dismantle it, the further east it is, the harder it’ll be to incorporate into Israel without destroying the viability of a potential Palestinian state. So most of the Shomron region with the exception of Ariel and some of the communities around it is probably going to be given up sooner than say Ma’ale Adumum, even though Ma’ale Adumum is east of Shomron. The Israelis aren’t going to push for someplace like Shaked hard.

10

No matter how big it is, any settlement near the river has got to go. That’s a dealbreaker here – the Palestinians need to completely control their side of their border with Jordan, and that means no IDF in sight, therefore no settlers in sight.

11

I think we did go over all of this and I’m not sure why you had to post another thread.

Edit: Maybe you can not use wiki?

12

I asked you repeatedly and you never said anything at all about where you would draw the border or what settlements Israel should give up. Neither did Alessan, and I would have expected something on that from him. So, I decided to start a more focused thread. As for Wiki, I posted several relevant Wiki links in the OP here – what am I missing?

13

Really?

There are so many things wrong with wiki, their sources, and demographics, but there isn’t even a consensus of how many Palestinians are in the West Bank. I think I get your point, though.

Golan Heights will never be ceded.

Majority would seem to say so.

We covered that. But again, Israel doesn’t have specific borders with the WB.

The 67 line is indefensible. Obama seems to agree - or at least, concedes that it isn’t going back to that. I have not read one (non pro Palestinian) person assert that strict adherence to 1948 (or 67, because 67 is pre-48) is defensible.

And the PLO…which was formed a few years prior to the war. Anyway. Israel won a war, gained territory, and built. Pretty common.

Funny. Hasn’t stopped Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Iraq (soldiers for hire, anywho).

They also have a new problem with the regime change in Egypt. They get in hundreds of African migrants and refugees (mostly migrants is what I’ve read) from Egypt. Egypt helps control that border, but who knows what will happen later. I mean, Egypt isn’t exactly an angel when it comes to arms smuggling with Hamas.

Palestine shouldn’t have one.

Unrest in Sryia, a call for nationalism in Jordan (i.e., Palestinians must go), breakdown of relationship with the King…um? Do you follow these things?

Cut the fucking Jew jokes.

Why don’t you wait until they start talking? You have this weird idea that you can just take a Sharpie down a map and yell BINGO!

You’re looking at it all wrong on so many levels, but the glaring obvious mistake here is that you keep thinking of the map as flat. The world is not flat. Israel is not flat. The West Bank - and most certainly the area around the Jordan - is not flat.

If the PLO can shell rockets into Tel Aviv, then that’s an issue. That is a legit border issue, and one I’ve addressed 10 times now, so what was the purpose of your thread again? Oh yeah. Attention-seeking.

Do you want to be downhill from your enemy?

Anyway, this whole thing is pointless because a) You’re trying to create a new thread to draw attention to something that’s already been hashed out but apparently it makes you feel better b) Hamas has already said it won’t recognize Israel and will only agree to temporary peace and c) Obama agrees the borders won’t be on the exact 67 line. That’s crazy. You’re asking Israel to go back to its 48 line and that ain’t gonna happen. The PLO and Hamas will just have to choke a little.

14

No, don’t use Wiki. It’s dated, biased, sometimes wrong, and just poor for this kind of thing.

I said the major blocks outside of Jerusalem would be kept (like the ones that are pretty much towns of 20-30k - one even has a university), something would have to be done about Jordan River security, the smaller ones and outposts would have to go, and fuck if we’re leaving behind synagogues this time.

But again, this is useless: Hamas is in the picture.

15

Wild guess here: Jordan won’t mind if there’s an Isareli outpost or two. They hate illegal immigrants from the WB.

I wonder if Jordan will expel some Palestinians.

16

That was the original plan back in in the Mandate process, before 48, but it didn’t happen that way. The Jews in the West Bank (Judea and Sumeria back then, I guess) had to flee east and the Jews in Jerusalem were under siege by Jordan. Arabs in the Yishuv areas left - by force and common sense. The ones that stayed became Israelis (though I think the Arabs that are in Jerusalem post 67 war are not citizens because they refused citizenship).

17

that.

18

The PLA put you in charge of their negotiation team, so that you can say what’s a dealbreaker and what’s not? :slight_smile: But there aren’t really many settlements in the Eastern Jordan Valley…and I think the only ones with populations over 1000 are Mizpe Yeriho, Ma’ale Efrayim, and Kokhav Hashahar. But I have no idea what’s going to happen.

19

I wouldn’t give them funds for infrastructure without actually overseeing it.

But no, it should be a land swap. The WB can extend further into…the Negev or something.

(okay, kind of being facetious, but ;))

20

I’d rather see Palestine expel some illegal immigrants,.