Peace and the pre-Six Day War borders -- What is the Connection?

[martinw718]

I got the idea for this discussion thread from ibrodsky.

We keep hearing peace and the pre-1967 borders discussed together with the assumption that there is some connection between the two.

I would like those who are advocating a return to the pre-1967 borders as a way to peace to explain this connection.

Yeah, it's kind of a dare.

There seems to be no historical evidence for tying the two together.

No indication (whatsoever) from the muslims that they would respect such borders any more than they did before.

Where did this pre-1967-borders = peace assumption come from?

[Haifa]

it came from these facts:

1- pre 1967 borders are recognized as israel by international law

2- west bank and gaza are NOT considered parts of israel under international law

3- people inside the 1967 borders have Israeli passports

4- people in west bank and gaza do NOT have israeli passports

5- People in west bank and gaza are not israelis, and they are not going no where, and hence, the 1967 border's connection to peace.

[elke]

It doesn't explain the lack of the self-same peace prior to the Six-Day War. It also does not explain the naivete of the proponents of the hare-brained idea of unilateral withdrawal by Israel.

[Haifa]

actually that's different. prior to 1980s, PLO and others were fighting for all ofisrael. now things changed.

[elke]

Originally posted by Haifa
actually that's different. prior to 1980s, PLO and others were fighting for all ofisrael. now things changed.

Really? How did they change?

[Haifa]

it changed by admitting that they'll never be able to get all of israel and that the only chance for them is to settle for the westbank.


They still wish they could have israel (in their hearts) but they aree negotiating for the west bank.

also, if the west bank is given, they will not be able to attack israel since it will be a country attacking another country.

[elke]

Originally posted by Haifa
it changed by admitting that they'll never be able to get all of israel and that the only chance for them is to settle for the westbank.


They still wish they could have israel (in their hearts) but they aree negotiating for the west bank.

also, if the west bank is given, they will not be able to attack israel since it will be a country attacking another country.

OK, but these things are usually more complex than just "leave". The agreements must be worked out detailing all the terms. This is the true obstacle then: as has been discussed ad nauseam, as of now there is no one to work out these details with. It's no joke: whoever will have to have adequate controls in order to enforce whatever agreement is signed. Otherwise, Israel will be forced to enforce it, and we are back to square one.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Haifa
it came from these facts:

1- pre 1967 borders are recognized as israel by international law

2- west bank and gaza are NOT considered parts of israel under international law

3- people inside the 1967 borders have Israeli passports

4- people in west bank and gaza do NOT have israeli passports

5- People in west bank and gaza are not israelis, and they are not going no where, and hence, the 1967 border's connection to peace.


The borders were never established in 1948 therefore the pre 1967 borders are imaginary. Further UN resolution 162 clearly indicates that Israel has the right to secure borders. Since the Palestinians have never seen fit to negotiate the location of said borders you’re wrong at least four counts.

[martinw718]

Originally posted by Haifa
it came from these facts:

1- pre 1967 borders are recognized as israel by international law

2- west bank and gaza are NOT considered parts of israel under international law

3- people inside the 1967 borders have Israeli passports

4- people in west bank and gaza do NOT have israeli passports

5- People in west bank and gaza are not israelis, and they are not going no where, and hence, the 1967 border's connection to peace.

No. That wasn't my question.

I didn't ask if you agree with the 1967 borders or if a majority in the United Nations ("international law") agrees with the 1967 borders.

I asked what the connection is to peace. You never said. You just jumped from passports to peace. "and hence..." (And hence?)

You gave absolutely no hint as to how peace and the 1967 borders go together.

What is the connection? How would going back to the 1967 borders contribute to peace?

Is there any indication (much less guarantee) that the Arabs would respect the 1967 borders. They didn't before. Why would they now?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Haifa
also, if the west bank is given, they will not be able to attack israel since it will be a country attacking another country.

As if that would matter to them. They already believe they are in their own country and they under the delusion that the world's accceptance and patience for them is unlimited. All they have managed to legitimize is the use of terror as a bona fide tool of diplomacy. A free and Jew free Palestine would merely have its own money and post office (already has its own passports) and every dispute with Israel from that point forward would be pursued through terrorism anyway.

Water Rights?? Boom
Ports and Airports?? Boom
Import duties?? Boom
Credit, trade balance?? Boom Boom
and on and on.

To his credit, the one thing that Arafat has managed to accomplish is convince the world that murder is a legitimate modality of foreign policy. Why would he suddenly stop?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by martinw718
I asked what the connection is to peace. You never said. You just jumped from passports to peace. "and hence..." (And hence?)


You are correct there is no correlation. There is merely the statement that poof! With a sizzle, a spark and a puff of smoke all will be forgiven and the lambs and lions will lie together and sing folk songs. Which is utter nonsense. In fact the PA doesn't have to demonstrate any actual peace. If/When they get their JewFree Palestine they will simply continue murder and then claim with mock horror and feigned insult that they are poor poor Palestinians who have no control over their ahem... more zealous compadres.

[martinw718]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


You are correct there is no correlation. There is merely the statement that poof! With a sizzle, a spark and a puff of smoke all will be forgiven and the lambs and lions will lie together and sing folk songs. Which is utter nonsense. In fact the PA doesn't have to demonstrate any actual peace. If/When they get their JewFree Palestine they will simply continue murder and then claim with mock horror and feigned insult that they are poor poor Palestinians who have no control over their ahem... more zealous compadres.

In other words, the road signs would be different.

[martinw718]

Originally posted by Commercial Nine
Before Israel

"GET THE JEWS OUT, THEN WE WILL HAVE PEACE"

After Israel

"END ISRAEL, THEN WE WILL HAVE PEACE"

After 6-Day War

"END THE OCCUPATION, THEN WE WILL HAVE PEACE"

Once the third is accomplished, they will go back to the second, and maybe third. To assume that by going back to something their will be peace, I think there would have to be peace at the time that those circumstances were in place.

It's kind of like a square dance with the U.N. calling. :)