Consensus on Defensible Borders and a United Jerusalem

At a conference at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, former Ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold argued that at the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict lies the necessity for defensible borders for Israel and a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. He also discussed how in Israel, as well as the United States and in the Jewish community, there is a consensus about these two issues.

http://www.defensibleborders.org/security/
http://jcpa.org


The U.S. and "Defensible Borders": How Washington Has Understood UN Security Council Resolution 242 and Israel's Security Needs
By Dr. Dore Gold

-The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution
242, adopted in the wake of the Six-Day War on November 22, 1967, does not require a full
withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines (also called the 1967 borders). There is no basis to
the argument that the U.S. has traditionally demanded of Israel either a full withdrawal or a
nearly full withdrawal from the territories it captured in the Six-Day War.
-In the international legal community there was an acute awareness that Jordan had illegally
invaded the West Bank in 1948 and held it until 1967, when Israel captured the territory
in a war of self-defense. Israel's entitlement to changes in the pre-1967 lines did not arise
because it had been vulnerable, but rather because it had been the victim of aggression in
1967.
-When asked what was the "minimum territory" that Israel "might be justified in retaining
in order to permit a more effective defense," the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS), General Earl Wheeler, responded on June 29, 1967: "From a strictly military point of
view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide
militarily defensible borders." Regarding the West Bank, the JCS specifically suggested "a
boundary along the commanding terrain overlooking the Jordan River," and considered
taking this defense line up to the crest of the mountain ridge.
-The Clinton parameters of 2000 did not become official U.S. policy. After President George
W. Bush came into office, U.S. officials informed the newly-elected Sharon government that
the administration would not be bound by the Clinton parameters discussed with Israel's
Barak government. Conversely, it was understood that the Sharon government would
likewise not be bound by its predecessor's proposals.
-President Bush wrote to Prime Minister Sharon on April 14, 2004: "In light of new realities
on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to
expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the
armistice lines of 1949."
Please read Dr. Gold's full article:
http://www.jcpa.org/text/security/gold.pdf

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• jerusalem
• israel
• dore gold
• Dan Diker
• united nations
• resolution 242
• middle east
• peace process
• jcpa
• defensible borders
• rabin
• reagan
• dennis ross
• christopher letter
• tzahal
• idf
• sovereignty
• united jerusalem
• PA
• Palestinian Authority
• Gaza
• Hamas
• Hezbollah
• Lebanon
• Iran
• Ahmadinejad
• Netanyahu
• Obama
• East Jerusalem
• West Bank
• Golan
• Tel-Aviv
• Ben-Gurion
• Jordan Valley

[Jasminewynja]

@odieipsagel

Not that sure about it when thinking of a neverending war that in much is dependent on the way Israel is defending it self. Settlements for example is not a part of the defense but is used as it in the debates

[odieipsagel]

the best defense of the world