What exactly is being contested about the 1967 borders?

[syano]

I’m confused on what exactly is being contested. If I understand correctly, Netanyahu foresees a two state resolution with Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. I also understand that Netanyahu is in strict opposition to withdrawing to the 67’ borders. Since the 67’ borders separate the West Bank and Gaza from Israel then aren’t these two understandings contradictory of each other?

Is it the Golan Heights that is being contested here?

 

[Majd100]

They need the land without the people who are living there since centuries.

Golan Heights became part of Israel in 1980 according to the votes of the Israeli parliament and 500000 Syrian refugees lost their right to return.

If another country did that, then we call it fascism.

 

[Char. Limit]

My opinion is that Israel won the war(s) (you know, the ones where THEY GOT ATTACKED), so to the victor go the spoils, especially when the victor was the defender. Cruel? Maybe. Heartless? Certainly. Realistic? Absolutely.

 

[syano]

To clarify my original question, please let’s not get into the politics of the Palestinian/Israel conflict debating about who is right or wrong; but rather what is exactly being contested by Netanyahu in response to Obama’s recent policy stance where he states that a resolution should be based on 1967 borders.

 

[rootX]

From PBS:

What are the 1967 borders?

The borders of Israel have been controversial since the United States, Great Britain and other winners of World War II got together to redraw the map of Europe and the Middle East.

In 1947, the United Nations carved up the former British protectorate of Palestine into two sections and created a religious nation to protect Jews who had been targeted by European anti-Semitism and the Nazis in the Holocaust.

However, the formation of a Jewish state displaced the people who were living in the area, many of whom were Arab and Muslim. The surrounding Arab nations immediately declared war on the new country.

The 1967 war began when Israel, fearing an invasion, launched a preemptive attack on Egypt. In quick succession, the Israelis seized Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River and East Jerusalem from Jordan, a monumental victory for Israel and a catastrophe to Arabs.

Over time, Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan, and gave back some of what it captured. At the same time, however, more than 300,000 Jewish settlers created walled-off settlements in Palestinian land as a political and religious attempt to expand the land they claim God promised them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/world/jan-june11/obamaspeech_05-20.html

However this does not answer the OP question.

 

[Ryumast3r]

To clarify my original question, please let’s not get into the politics of the Palestinian/Israel conflict debating about who is right or wrong; but rather what is exactly being contested by Netanyahu in response to Obama’s recent policy stance where he states that a resolution should be based on 1967 borders.

From what I've got... Israel wants three things and it can only have two: a Jewish state, a democratic state, and a state that stretches from the Suez to the Jordan.

Losing a Jewish-majority state would endanger the world's Jews, and if you seriously think Israel shouldn't be democratic you should go move to some nation that isn't founded on democratic rights.

That leaves the option of cutting the Palestinian majority areas off of the Jewish state to be controlled by another.

Personally, I think the two-state solution is dead. First the Palestinians weren't cooperating, now the Jews aren't. The Jews won't deal fairly with a weaker partner. Also, dealing with Hamas is a bad idea for us but unavoidable if there's to be an independent Palestine.

So I support a three-state solution where Egypt & Jordan take over Gaza & the West Bank, respectively.

(Credit not mine for the post, that goes to a guy I know named Stu who I just happen to agree with. He's semi-serious in this post but not completely)

 

[pallidin]

Proclaimed by Israel, the 1967 border relocation is "indefensible" without significant modification; thus would subject Israel to an extraordinarily unreasonable ability to defend itself.
That IS the main contention, as the radical Palestinians(and others) wish nothing less than that of the total destruction of Israel.

 

[Proton Soup]

I’m confused on what exactly is being contested. If I understand correctly, Netanyahu foresees a two state resolution with Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. I also understand that Netanyahu is in strict opposition to withdrawing to the 67’ borders. Since the 67’ borders separate the West Bank and Gaza from Israel then aren’t these two understandings contradictory of each other?

Is it the Golan Heights that is being contested here?

based on what Netanyahu has said in the past, i think it is unlikely he foresees a two-state solution. you can see for yourself what Binyamin was saying about sabotaging the peace process

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/the-world-wont-say-a-thing-netanyahu-on-ongoing-israeli-expansion.html

what this basically comes down to is a religious war, with the attempt being to re-establish biblical borders, what is known as Eretz Yisrael or Greater Israel. even this leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and can be relatively http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel#State_of_Israel.2C_West_Bank.2C_and_Gaza_Strip".

in my opinion, it is Netanyahu's intention to keep every square inch of occupied land if possible and only cede when it is absolutely necessary. from the end of the above transcript:

Netanyahu: He’s not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent.” The trick is not to be there and break down. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.

 

[Majd100]

Proclaimed by Israel, the 1967 border relocation is "indefensible" without significant modification; thus would subject Israel to an extraordinarily unreasonable ability to defend itself.
That IS the main contention, as the radical Palestinians(and others) wish nothing less than that of the total destruction of Israel.

If the radical Palestinian wants to destroy Israel, the Zionists already removed Palestine from the map and waiting the suitable time for ethic cleansing.

Lieberman is an Israeli minister, and I doubt that you could find any nation that can accept such fascist person in any government in the world including Iran.

 

[tiny-tim]

If I understand correctly, Netanyahu foresees a two state resolution with Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. I also understand that Netanyahu is in strict opposition to withdrawing to the 67’ borders. Since the 67’ borders separate the West Bank and Gaza from Israel then aren’t these two understandings contradictory of each other?

that's right … your two understandings contradict each other

can you provide a link to explain your first one? ​

 

[syano]

that's right … your two understandings contradict each other

can you provide a link to explain your first one? ​

I'm not able to find a link substantiating this claim; apparently this is where my misunderstanding lays. Subconsciously I must have concluded that Netanyahu sought a two-state solution consisting of Gaza and the West Bank, based on my knowledge of his recent statements to Congress and AIPAC using the words “two states for two peoples” and my knowledge of the wall the Israelis are building that is right along side of the 1967 borders (or at least very close to it)… It wasn’t too far of a jump to think that this second state would consist of the property on the other side of this wall.

 

[tiny-tim]

… my knowledge of the wall the Israelis are building that is right along side of the 1967 borders (or at least very close to it)… It wasn’t too far of a jump to think that this second state would consist of the property on the other side of this wall.

hmm … you seem to need a lot more background knowledge before you can follow these speeches

start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier" for comparison)

(and check before you quote people in future! )

 

[syano]

(and check before you quote people in future! )

I don’t understand what you are saying or what you want me to look for within that long article? I was quoting you simply to make it clear that my reply was based on your response. And essentially thanking you for clearing up where my misunderstanding was. You asked me for a link showing Bibi’s support of a second state consisting of the West Bank. I replied that I couldn’t find a link substantiating MY claim... not yours. This helped clear up my misunderstanding. Did you misread my last response thinking that I was arguing with you? I may have worded is clumsy.

I do have a decent amount of background knowledge of the Israeli / Arab conflict. At least compared to the circles that I run with.

 

[tiny-tim]

don’t understand what you are saying or what you want me to look for within that long article? … Did you misread my last response thinking that I was arguing with you?

Not at all … I wasn't linking that wikipedia article to the part of your post that I didn't quote, but to the part that I did quote …

… my knowledge of the wall the Israelis are building that is right along side of the 1967 borders (or at least very close to it)… It wasn’t too far of a jump to think that this second state would consist of the property on the other side of this wall.

… which seemed sufficiently unreal that some background reading was appropriate

I do have a decent amount of background knowledge of the Israeli / Arab conflict. At least compared to the circles that I run with.

you probably need more if you're going to post in this sub-forum

and btw, when you start a thread with "I'm confused", you should expect people to help with offers of background reading! ​

 

[syano]

... which seemed sufficiently unreal that some background reading was appropriate

It makes sense that Israelis seeking a two state solution would not want their people on the opposite side of their barrier wall. I don’t see how you think that is a “sufficiently unreal” assertion.

you probably need more if you're going to post in this sub-forum

That’s arrogant, off topic, and argumentative. I’m to believe that your knowledge is so great based on your ability to link a Wikipedia article?

I still have no idea what you are disputing. Are you disputing that the wall is not along side (close to) the 67’ borders? Or are you disputing that it’s nonsensical to think that Israelis would want their people on their side of the wall if a two state solution ever came to be?

and btw, when you start a thread with "I'm confused", you should expect people to help with offers of background reading!

As previously stated, my confusion was cleared up prior to you saying that “I needed more background knowledge before I could follow these speeches.”

I was confused about a very specific question and had researched it prior to making my original post. You didn’t help me by saying “do more background reading.” However you did indirectly help by asking me to provide you with a link showing Bibi’s specific support of a second state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. When I couldn’t find this, it became apparent what was causing my misunderstanding.