PM refuses to reveal his ‘final borders’ map

Apparently Netanyahu is sticking to his demands and adding others. He is also resolute with Hamas. Best of all construction is well on its way for a record year. T. Belman

By Herb Keinon, JPOST

[..] One Israeli official said that while Netanyahu is not opposed to discussing borders, he is unwilling to do so in a vacuum “without first having a clear understanding of security issues, and the character of a future Palestinian state.”

Before discussing a map of a future state of Palestine, the official said, Netanyahu wants to “first discuss the security map.”

Netanyahu has said that in any future agreement Israel would have to retain a security presence on the Jordan River, and – according to a recent Newsweek story – has told the Palestinians he also wants Israeli troops stationed along territory on the Palestinian side of the security barrier to protect the country’s “narrow waistline.”

The official said it is impossible to discuss the contours of a border without first knowing whether a future Palestinian state “will be demilitarized, and how that will be achieved.”

It is also necessary first to see whether this state will recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state and whether it will consider that an agreement with Israel will put an end to the conflict, “with no more demands,” the official said.

December 23, 2010 | 8 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. There is no need to publish borders of Israel. They have been published in almost every language of the World for 3,000 years…

  2. The spies were “pragmatic”. They never made it back here. Calev Ben Yefuneh inherited Hevron and its surroundings:

    “And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of them that spied out the land, rent their clothes.
    And they spoke unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: ‘The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceeding good land.
    If the LORD delight in us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it unto us–a land which floweth with milk and honey.
    Only rebel not against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us; their defence is removed from over them, and the LORD is with us; fear them not.'”

    – Numbers 14:6-9

    “But My servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed Me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.”
    – ibid, verse 24

    That other spirit, not arguing with the world till we’re blue in the face, is all that’s needed.

  3. From an advocacy point of view it is important to have pragmatic voices such as JCPA and religious voices such as Feiglin. In other words one needs conventional arms not just nuclear arms to win a war. JCPA articulates a reasonable position. They are to the right of Bibi I believe. Many will say that we should present a united front aimed at a Jewish one state solution and not offer any reasonable compromises. This is the debate.

    In any event we are not getting Olmert’s plan, G-d forbid, so we surely won’t get “defensible borders” as advocated by JCPA. Thus as I have said our choice is either the Saudi Plan or annexation. The rest is tactics.

  4. Bill, looking back now at the JCPA’s post, I see I quoted them here out of context.

    However, going to JCPA’s Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process page of articles, one can see that the bottom line is that JCPA is willing, at some point and under the “right” circumstance, to negotiate away more of the land of Israel.

    Ongoing negotiations with these barbaric Muslim terrorists are part of the problem, not the solution. Hence I stand by what I accused the JCPA of, albeit not from their comment here.

  5. Dear JCPA,

    We can all talk till we’re blue in the face. The problem is that’s just what the Israeli government has been doing for 2 decades.

    You talk about “future negotiations”. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

  6. The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
    But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries.

    See more:
    The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders” – No Such Borders Ever Existed