Matthew Bell

Matthew Bell

Matthew Bell is a Jerusalem-based Middle East reporter. He has been with The World since 2001 and has filed stories from cities across the US and abroad.

  • |
  • ALL POSTS

The Significance of the 1967 Borders

May 24, 2011 ⋅ Post a comment
Play
Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

About 9,000 Israelis live in the settlement of Efrat, which lies outside the 1967 "green line" that once divided Israel from the then Jordanian-controled West Bank. (photo: Alon Tuval)

From the year that Israel was founded in 1948, up until the end of the Six-Day-War in June 1967, the so-called “green line” divided Israel from the Jordanian-controled West Bank. Over the past 43 years, some 300,000 Israelis have settled in the West Bank, which many Israelis refer to by the Biblical names, Judea and Samaria. The concept of a pre-1967 border doesn’t mean much to 18 year-old Elad Schwartz. He’s spent his whole life beyond the green line, in a large bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem, called Gush Etzion.

“If Jews are ever forcibly removed from here,” Schwartz said, “it will lead to violence. And we’ll just come back and re-settle this place anyway.”

A local business owner, who didn’t want to give his name, said it’s a bad idea to try and draw a new border through here, dividing Israel from the future independent state of Palestine.

“If you’re going to change the borders which exist today, two things are gonna happen: a) war will raise its head, and b) hate will ensue. This will cause the US much bigger problems than they have now. If you keep the borders as-is, the status quo can keep going.”

But President Obama said the status quo is unsustainable. The only way for the Palestinians to have their rights and Israel to survive as a Jewish and democratic state, Mr. Obama argues, is to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and give the Palestinians a state of their own.

Joshua Zimmerman and David Malul live in the Tekoa settlement in the West Bank. (photo: Alon Tuval)

37-year-old David Malul does yard work and other odd jobs to make ends meet. He lives in a nearby settlement called Tekoa. And he said he’s not opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. What he is frustrated by is President Obama’s apparent willingness to draw a new border that doesn’t take into account, Jewish history.

“The Bible says that this is our land, the Quran says that this is our land, the Torah says that this is our land. We came back to where we supposed to be,” Malul said. “It’s like saying to the Americans, ‘go back to Europe. It belongs to the Indians.’ Excuse me.”

Malul said he gets along with his Palestinian neighbors quite well. But he said there’s a disconnect between politics and the reality on the ground.

“What is the problem?” he asked. “Why we need to be so cruel and move this guy from here and this guy from here and this guy from here? So, the right way to do it is to live together.” He said of course there can be two states with everyone getting along. “Why not? Why not? We believe in (the existence of) Tekoa, and that the Palestinians should govern their own selves.”

It’s recess at a kindergarten in the settlement of Efrat. About 9,000 Israelis live there, in modern, suburban-style homes with beautiful views of Palestinian agricultural land. If President Obama does succeed in reviving the long-stalled peace process, the status of this settlement would become one of many issues for negotiators. But Efrat’s mayor Oded Revivi, said he has little faith in that happening now.

“Who are we supposed to discuss this peace agreement with, when the Palestinians are having an internal battle between them? Whether Hamas are going to rule or Fatah is going to rule, we don’t know, so we don’t have a leader and we don’t have a nation that we know what they want in order to determine with them our future.”

Oded Revivi is mayor of Efrat, a West Bank settlement outside of Jerusalem. (photo: Alon Tuval)

Revivi said he respects President Obama¹s apparent desire to move Israel and the Palestinians closer to peaceŠ but for now at least, he said it¹s very difficult to see a clear path ahead. Palestinian officials have welcomed the idea of making the 1967 border a basis for negotiations. And they are calling on Israel¹s prime minister to do the same. Then, they say, it will be possible to get back to peace talks. In the meantime though, the Palestinian Authority appears set to continue its effort to seek recognition for statehood at the United Nations in September.


Discussion

8 comments for “The Significance of the 1967 Borders”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6L6FTDBJYFKOHEZCN6BO6ZEGQ dorn

    The borders are significant because of the endless wars launched to destroy Israel, and ongoing Arab rejection of any permanent Israel. Prior to 1967, Israel was only 9 miles wide at its center, where most of its people live. It is one thing to cede land to a peaceable neighbor like Canada, and another to a neighbor that denies your legitimacy, and indoctrinates its youth for endless conflict.

    Nor are the borders the only issue. The reason Israeli PM Netanyahu reacted in the way he did in
    Washington is manifold: President Obama decided to deliver a major
    hostile policy change, the day before PM Netanyahu’s visit, to
    embarrass him. President Obama demanded concrete Israeli concessions -
    a withdrawal to essentially 9 mile wide borders from Israel, while not demanding any concrete
    actions from the Palestinian leadership.

    Worst of all, President Obama made no reference to the refugee
    issue. In particular, President Obama’s speech gives Palestinians the
    green light to pursue a state along 1967 lines, while keeping the issue
    of refugees as a pretext for later conflict. Mahmoud Abbas can continue
    to demand a “Jew-free” state on the West Bank, while calling for
    resettlement of Arab refugees in pre-1967 Israel, not in the West Bank.
    This absurd claim denies the rights of the similar number of JEWISH
    REFUGEES FROM ARAB LANDS. It sidesteps Arab culpability for starting
    the wars that led to BOTH refugee issues.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6L6FTDBJYFKOHEZCN6BO6ZEGQ dorn

    If there was a reasonable chance that the Palestinians would end the
    conflict in exchange for land, 90% of Israelis, including PM Netanyahu
    would jump at that. As recently as 2008, Mahmoud Abbas dismissed such an offer without counterproposal. It is crystal clear that nothing Israel can do
    will end the conflict. It would not make a difference if Israel
    consisted just of Tel Aviv, nor if its PM was the Dalai Lama.

    How long will it take The World to report the numerous Palestinian actions that reject coexistence:

    (1) Seeking unilateral statehood without peace;

    (2) The pact between Fatah and Hamas;

    (3) Abbas saying he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which brings him quite close to the Hamas position).

    (4) The PA officially denying any Jewish connection to Jerusalem;

    (5) The PA naming town squares after the worst suicide attackers;

    (6) The PA praising and encouraging Nakba day;

    (7) The PA demanding Arab refugees be resettled in pre-1967 Israel, not the West Bank.

    (8) The refusal to recognize the rights of the similar number of JEWISH REFUGEES FROM ARAB LANDS.

    Above all, how long will it take to tell the bottom line: Arab refusal to accept a permanent Jewish state, no matter how small?

     

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6L6FTDBJYFKOHEZCN6BO6ZEGQ dorn

    David RothKopf (spelling), currently at Carnegie, asserted that

    (i) Netanyhau embarrassed President Obama;

    (ii) Netanyah did damage to the US-Israel relationship;

    (iii) Netanyahu’s statements were not a step forward.

    However it was President Obama who deliberately made a major hostile
    policy changing speech the day before Prime Minister Netanyhau’s visit,
    surprising him, and leaving him scrambling to respond. This is not as
    bad as Netanyahu’s first visit to the White House, when President Obama
    humiliated him in multiple ways, but it is the sort of treatment Obama
    would never impose on Mahmoud Abbas.

    As regards damage to bilateral relations: What options did Netanyahu
    have? Accede to President Obama’s one-sided demands, and then face
    still more pressure from Obama further down the road? Recall that Obama
    forced Israel into a ten month housing freeze, and didn’t give anything
    in return. Nor did Obama say anyhing to the Palestinian Authority when
    the latter scoffed at the freeze, and refused any reciprocal gestures.

    As regards a step forward: Netanayhu offered a step forward, a
    Palestinian state. Name ONE constructive step from the Palestinian
    Authority in recent years. 

    Finally, thank you Matthew Bell for telling the stories of Israelis for
    once – but remember that there were vibrant and old Jewish communities
    in the West Bank and East Jerusalem prior to Israel’s founding. Hebron
    had an ancient Jewish community til the 1929 massacre. “Arab East
    Jerusalem” had a Jewish majority from the 1840′s until the 1920′s
    riots, when most Jews were driven out. Gush Etzion and even Gaza had
    Jewish towns/ villages till 1948.

  • http://twitter.com/soaked2thebone Dianne

    As far as my understanding goes (and I have seen the video clips) Bill Clinton and Bush 43 said basically the same thing: 1967 borders WITH  land swaps meaning the borders would be negotiated. This isn’t the same thing as saying the borders have to be carbon copies of 1967. So Obama is saying nothing new and he has made stipulations that Palestine must recognize the statehood of Israel, etc. The UN is going to consider the statehood of Palestine in the fall and we all know the US has few allies at the UN. So it is important for Israel to work this out, but how can they when Palestine is not willing to even recognize Israel? I don’t think there is much in it for Obama or the US as we cannot make a miracle happen, but of course Obama will get blamed for anything and everything to do with this issue which in reality should not be a partisan issue.

  • http://twitter.com/soaked2thebone Dianne

    As far as my understanding goes (and I have seen the video clips) Bill Clinton and Bush 43 said basically the same thing: 1967 borders WITH  land swaps meaning the borders would be negotiated. This isn’t the same thing as saying the borders have to be carbon copies of 1967. So Obama is saying nothing new and he has made stipulations that Palestine must recognize the statehood of Israel, etc. The UN is going to consider the statehood of Palestine in the fall and we all know the US has few allies at the UN. So it is important for Israel to work this out, but how can they when Palestine is not willing to even recognize Israel? I don’t think there is much in it for Obama or the US as we cannot make a miracle happen, but of course Obama will get blamed for anything and everything to do with this issue which in reality should not be a partisan issue.

  • http://twitter.com/soaked2thebone Dianne

    As far as my understanding goes (and I have seen the video clips) Bill Clinton and Bush 43 said basically the same thing: 1967 borders WITH  land swaps meaning the borders would be negotiated. This isn’t the same thing as saying the borders have to be carbon copies of 1967. So Obama is saying nothing new and he has made stipulations that Palestine must recognize the statehood of Israel, etc. The UN is going to consider the statehood of Palestine in the fall and we all know the US has few allies at the UN. So it is important for Israel to work this out, but how can they when Palestine is not willing to even recognize Israel? I don’t think there is much in it for Obama or the US as we cannot make a miracle happen, but of course Obama will get blamed for anything and everything to do with this issue which in reality should not be a partisan issue.

  • Anonymous

    With respect to the 1967 Green Line, it was a ceasefire line established by Moshe Dayan on the Israeli side and the Jordanian general in command of his troops on the Jordanian side.  It was merely a line drawn on a map with the green ink of a felt pen in order to demarcate where the respective troops ended up so a ceasefire could be put in place.  It was never never meant to be a line establishing a new border.  In fact, the line as drawn in ink was so thick as to cover several kilometres in places. 

  • Anonymous

    The socalled 1967 border was really a ceasefire line established between Israel (Moshe Dayan) and Jordan at the end of hostilities and as a means of ending hostilities.  The line differentiated between the two opposing armies, the Israeli and the Jordanian.  It was penned in green ink, therefore the Green Line.  In fact, the thickness of the line as drawn sometimes actually covered several kilometres on the ground.  So much for borders!