I'm guessing that by "1967 borders" you don't mean the borders from 1967 to present, but the borders from 1949 to 1967, ie: basically the "green line" 1949 armistice borders, right?
Why do you see the 1949 armistice line as more legitimate than, say, the 1946 borders? Or the 1947 UN partition plan?
I'm guessing that by "1967 borders" you don't mean the borders from 1967 to present, but the borders from 1949 to 1967, ie: basically the "green line" 1949 armistice borders, right?
Why do you see the 1949 armistice line as more legitimate than, say, the 1946 borders? Or the 1947 UN partition plan?
A problem is - a lot of Palestinians (and their supporters in the Arabic and/or Muslim world as well as the West) do not accept the borders established by war in 1949 either (ie: your (pre) 1967 border).
Look at Gaza - whose border pretty much follows the 1949-1967 borders. Israelis are not shrinking Gaza, in fact in 2005 they forcibly removed all the settlers, in what the left leaning government sold as "land for peace". But the Gazans overwhelmingly elected two parties who were not calling for an end to the blockade, but an end to Israel entirely.
What I'm getting at is: do you believe that a "return to the pre-1967 borders" (even if Palestinians do not accept those borders as any more valid) would end or reduce the intention of eliminating Israel? Our would it result in Israel essentially facing the same implacable opposition, only much better armed and positioned?
Try this: use Google maps to zoom in on the Tel Aviv area, and note how far t is from the 1949-1967 border to, say, Tel Aviv. The airport is only about 8 miles from the border. Hesbolah has reportedly amassed 100,000 rockets in the north, so an independent Palestine could do so too, far closer to Israeli population centers. But they wouldn't even need rockets - it's in very easy artillery range. Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers would likely become similar to Seol South Korea, with massive North Korean artillery able to destroy any portion thereof.
The possibility of a war with Palestinian losses 10 or 100 or more times greater than what's happening in Gaza today would be very real (along with an even greater multiplier of Israeli losses). Literally millions of lives would be at stake, and if Israel were to feel they were losing, nukes would come out.
I can't simply say "a rational person would obviously agree that withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders would obviously reduce rather than increase the chances of a catastrophic war in the coming decades". We don't know the future, but the chances of a vastly worse outcome for Israelis and Palestinians seems is hardly trivial.
In the strategic circumstance, with literally millions of lives likely on the line, it seems short sighted to simply decide on the best course forward based on no more than what saves thousands of lives in the immediate future - no matter how many horrifying videos try to emotionally hijack our rational long term considerations, under the nominal intention of "reminding us" that there are real people dying.
If one is concerned about a far more catastrophic war in the future, we have to factor in the real people with faces and names who would die in that conflict - even tho we don't have videos of those people yet, to activate our limbic systems and amygdala.
I've been reading the Hamas charter, the statement of Hamas leaders, the statement of PA leaders, and opinion polls among Palestinians (which are skimpy because it's very hard to do, even before this war). I personally don't see much realistic hope of peace, only of different front lines. And from that perspective, I can understand why Israel may be unwilling to return to the pre-1967 borders.
That doesn't mean there could not be some border which would work better for peace than the 1949 green line, or the present situation. But it makes harping on the pre-1967 border as if it would produce peace and security rather questionable.
I'm also not saying that means the Israeli's are justified in their actions. I think what's happening is horrible, and I want it to end in a better world.
I'm saying that some of the proposed "solutions" may be penny wise and pound foolish, ineffective in the real world of achieving the nominal aims of said solution, and too likely leading to even larger wars. Good (short term) intentions do not automatically lead to good (longer term) outcomes.
I'm guessing that by "1967 borders" you don't mean the borders from 1967 to present, but the borders from 1949 to 1967, ie: basically the "green line" 1949 armistice borders, right?
Why do you see the 1949 armistice line as more legitimate than, say, the 1946 borders? Or the 1947 UN partition plan?
A problem is - a lot of Palestinians (and their supporters in the Arabic and/or Muslim world as well as the West) do not accept the borders established by war in 1949 either (ie: your (pre) 1967 border).
Look at Gaza - whose border pretty much follows the 1949-1967 borders. Israelis are not shrinking Gaza, in fact in 2005 they forcibly removed all the settlers, in what the left leaning government sold as "land for peace". But the Gazans overwhelmingly elected two parties who were not calling for an end to the blockade, but an end to Israel entirely.
What I'm getting at is: do you believe that a "return to the pre-1967 borders" (even if Palestinians do not accept those borders as any more valid) would end or reduce the intention of eliminating Israel? Our would it result in Israel essentially facing the same implacable opposition, only much better armed and positioned?
Try this: use Google maps to zoom in on the Tel Aviv area, and note how far t is from the 1949-1967 border to, say, Tel Aviv. The airport is only about 8 miles from the border. Hesbolah has reportedly amassed 100,000 rockets in the north, so an independent Palestine could do so too, far closer to Israeli population centers. But they wouldn't even need rockets - it's in very easy artillery range. Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers would likely become similar to Seol South Korea, with massive North Korean artillery able to destroy any portion thereof.
The possibility of a war with Palestinian losses 10 or 100 or more times greater than what's happening in Gaza today would be very real (along with an even greater multiplier of Israeli losses). Literally millions of lives would be at stake, and if Israel were to feel they were losing, nukes would come out.
I can't simply say "a rational person would obviously agree that withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders would obviously reduce rather than increase the chances of a catastrophic war in the coming decades". We don't know the future, but the chances of a vastly worse outcome for Israelis and Palestinians seems is hardly trivial.
In the strategic circumstance, with literally millions of lives likely on the line, it seems short sighted to simply decide on the best course forward based on no more than what saves thousands of lives in the immediate future - no matter how many horrifying videos try to emotionally hijack our rational long term considerations, under the nominal intention of "reminding us" that there are real people dying.
If one is concerned about a far more catastrophic war in the future, we have to factor in the real people with faces and names who would die in that conflict - even tho we don't have videos of those people yet, to activate our limbic systems and amygdala.
I've been reading the Hamas charter, the statement of Hamas leaders, the statement of PA leaders, and opinion polls among Palestinians (which are skimpy because it's very hard to do, even before this war). I personally don't see much realistic hope of peace, only of different front lines. And from that perspective, I can understand why Israel may be unwilling to return to the pre-1967 borders.
That doesn't mean there could not be some border which would work better for peace than the 1949 green line, or the present situation. But it makes harping on the pre-1967 border as if it would produce peace and security rather questionable.
I'm also not saying that means the Israeli's are justified in their actions. I think what's happening is horrible, and I want it to end in a better world.
I'm saying that some of the proposed "solutions" may be penny wise and pound foolish, ineffective in the real world of achieving the nominal aims of said solution, and too likely leading to even larger wars. Good (short term) intentions do not automatically lead to good (longer term) outcomes.