SNAPSHOTS-TOP.jpg

« The EU on Hezbollah: What are the Consequences | Main | Where's the Coverage? Territory Occupied for Decades… Not by Israel »

July 22, 2013

Top Western Diplomats on 1967 Lines

green_lines.jpg

Now that Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States are again talking about peace talks, we've heard much, and will likely continue to hear, about the "1967 lines" — also known as the Green Line or the 1949 armistice lines.

As Israel figures out what type of territorial sacrifices it is willing to make in return for potential Palestinian concessions, it is worthwhile for the rest of us to remember what the diplomats behind United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 felt about those lines. Some words they used: Fragile, vulnerable, rotten and temporary.

Read them in context here.

Posted by GI at July 22, 2013 03:59 PM

Comments

My question is, what is Israel's compromise position supposed be in any talks with an adversary that a) will not recognize their right to exist as a Jewish state - even as all their neighbors are Muslim states basically cleansed of other religions, and b) is REQUIRED by their founding charters to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews?

These charters of all the organizations that control the Palestinian population on pain of death, explain everything that has happened in the area at least since 1947.

If you don't believe me please read the following three links carefully to see my point:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4061540,00.html

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=223181

Posted by: MarioG at July 25, 2013 11:19 AM

There is some concern that Kerry is all bluster, that he hasn't truly arrived at any basis for talks that can produce anything meaningful. Let's face it Obama/Kerry's withdrawal from Afghanistan is being done without any acknowledgement of the Taliban or just a bare minimal amount. Obama precipitously left Iraq and Al-Qaeda has ramped up its power there and is projecting fighters and material into Syria. Syria has gone to the way side and Russia is likely to ascend to the dominant role in the ME even though the western media has by and large omitted the Russian oil deal with Turkey and it's continued support of the Assad regime which has hamstrung NATO responses. Obama's response hasn't amounted to much more than a "Gas ! Gas ! Gas ! panic and scurrying about like recruits at a basic training CS chamber. And when there was a fleet off the Syrian coast with 10,000 US personnel aboard ready to respond to a gas attack by Assad's forces, it stood down turned tail and a larger Soviet, oops, Russian fleet took it's place. No comment in the Western media?
Now we are getting all tingly about renewed talks between the Israeli's and Palestinians. How serious can they be if they are brought about by the Presidency that stands by Morsi (Maybe Obama should be named a co-conspirator with Morsi in Morsi's up coming murder case?) Benghazi hasn't been settled, and every where else Obama has tread too softly Al-Qaeda multiplies. Israel has actually strengthened its positions with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, even the Assad government is being said to make overtures. considering the alternatives to genuine Democratic institutions that protect minority rights like Israel to a much greater degree than any of the Arab Spring governments Obama has supported, and the threat of NATO nation boycotts, it seems more and more Obama is turning the USA into the "Mouse that roars". Obama is threatening to allow Iran to have a bomb if Israel does not comply with his wishes, really, that is tact and policy? A nuclear Iran is a good thing?

Posted by: jeb stuart at July 27, 2013 10:07 AM

Guidelines for posting

This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)