Weekly Commentary No tricks please – issue never 1967 lines – it is 1967 land mass
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date:23 August 2010
Please don’t insult our intelligence.
The issue never – repeat never – was if Israel would retreat to the exact
line that existed at some date.
President Obama never said that.
And in negotiations the Palestinians apparently never insisted on it either.
The Palestinians do, however, insist that the land mass they end up with
match to the exact square centimeter the land mass that was delineated by a
line at some date. With this land mass size being reached by Israel
swapping on a 1:1 basis territory on the Israeli side of that historical
line for land on the other.
UNSC 242 did not require such a swap.
And Israelis for over a generation also rejected the notion that such a swap
was required.
Back to the present.
It is not – repeat – not – an achievement to get the Obama administration to
agree that Israel does not have to retreat to the exact line that existed at
some date, because Mr. Obama never made such a demand.
But if indeed Israel accepts today Mr. Obama’s insistence that the
Palestinians end up with a land mass that matches the exact square
centimeter of the land mass that was delineated by a line at some date then
this is nothing less than a potentially catastrophic concession.
And let’s not play with words here.
If Israel agrees to negotiate within a “framework” that that the
Palestinians end up with a land mass that matches the exact square
centimeter of the land mass that was delineated by a line at some date that
means that Israel has accepted the Palestinian demand. And that demand will
dictate the final outcome.
And let’s not try to argue that the concession – if indeed this concession
has been made – will ultimately be of no consequence because the
Palestinians won’t negotiate anyway.
This concession could be our worst nightmare also in the event that we face
unilateral Palestinian moves.
All the talk of unilaterally annexing areas in response to unilateral
Palestinian moves, for example, could be undermined by Israeli acceptance of
the requirement of a land swap. Not to mention the mess Israel would find
itself in under a unilateral Palestinian declaration Israel is pressured to
clear out of parts of the Negev in order to remain in French Hill etc.
So a plea both the journalists covering this story – and government
officials explaining Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions: please don’t insult our
intelligence.
If Mr. Netanyahu has decided to make this incredibly critical and costly
concession – one that once made may haunt us for years to come even if the
negotiations this round never take place then call it for what it is –
acceptance of the requirement of a 1:1 swap for any square centimeter Israel
retains.
There is no achievement in “not returning to the ’67 border” if this is via
a 1:1 land swap because that was not the demand on the table.
Yes, the situation is difficult and the pressures are great.
But when the public is presented with the costs and benefits of a decision,
it deserves to be presented with both the true costs and the true benefits
of the move.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
Posts
