The long view in Israel against the 1967 line

[bemildred]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent statement that Israel can't defend itself with borders drawn along pre-1967 lines has been questioned in certain foreign policy circles. These critics have noted that Israel successfully fought two wars, in 1956 and in 1967, while based within those borders. And they have claimed that borders don't matter as much in modern warfare. But Netanyahu is right.

The idea that the 1967 line isn't defensible has actually been around for decades. Indeed, the architects of Israel's national security doctrine reached that conclusion soon after the Six-Day War. The main strategic problem that Israel faced at that time was the enormous asymmetry between its small standing army, which needed to be reinforced with a timely reserve mobilization, and the large standing armies of its neighbors, which could form coalitions in times of tension and exploit Israel's narrow geography with overwhelming numbers. True, Israel won in 1967, but the war also pointed out the country's many vulnerabilities.

In the years following the war, the main advocate for creating new boundaries to replace the fragile lines from before 1967 was Yigal Allon, then Israel's deputy prime minister. Allon had considerable military experience, having commanded the Palmach, the elite strike units of the Jewish forces, in the 1948 war that created Israel.

In 1976, while serving as foreign minister, Allon wrote an article for Foreign Affairs outlining the strategic logic for his position. He pointed out that the 1967 line was an armistice line from Israel's war of independence and never intended as a final political boundary. Allon quoted the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1967, Arthur Goldberg, who said that the 1967 line was neither secure nor recognized. Given this background, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, backed by both the United States and Britain, only called for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" — but not from "all the territories." The resolution also didn't specify strict adherence to the pre-1967 line, advocating only that "secure and recognized" boundaries be established.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gold-israel-borders-20110605,0,6320227.story

[Never Stop Dancin]

1. those borders are crucial

to defend against Jordan if it falls to Radical Islam.

As someone who's made aliyah multiple times, I can assure you no Israeli will consent to wearing the Burka.

[Eagle Mall]

2. They just want the land. They want Jerusalem for their precious capital.

Who cares who was living there before they took it by force?

[henank]

3. LOL!

It was Jews who were living there for thousands of years before it was taken by force in 1948 by the Jordanians (not Palestinians). The Jordanians held it for 19 whole years which somehow makes it now "holy Palestinian (not Jordanian) land. The Israelis won it back in 1967, correcting a historical wrong.

[kayecy]

4. The only borders Israel has accepted are the 1948 partition borders.........n/t