Skip to main content

Netanyahu's false notion of 'utterly indefensible' borders of Israel: "نتنياهو الفكرة الخاطئة من الحدود 'لا يمكن الدفاع عنها تماما' إسرائيل"


"عن الحدود لتكون قابلة للدفاع ، فإنها تحتاج أولا إلى أن المشروعة والمعترف بها دوليا. رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي لا يثق الوثنيون لاعطاء بلاده هذا النوع من الاعتراف "
شلومو بن عامي

"For borders to be defensible, they need first to be legitimate and internationally recognised. The Israeli PM does not trust 'the gentiles' to give his country that type of recognition"
Shlomo Ben-Ami

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's furious rejection of US President Barack Obama's proposal to use the 1967 borders as the basis for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute — frontiers that he called ‘utterly indefensible' — reflects not only the Israeli prime minister's poor statesmanship, but also his antiquated military philosophy.

In an era of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction, and in which the planned Palestinian state is supposed to be demilitarised, why is it so vital for Israel to see its army ‘sit along the Jordan River'? If such a tripwire is really necessary, why shouldn't a reliable international force carry out that task? And how can hundreds of isolated colonies spread amidst a hostile Palestinian population ever be considered a strategic asset?

Netanyahu should, perhaps, have studied the lessons of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war before denouncing Obama's idea. When the war started, the first thing the Israeli army command sought was the evacuation of the area's colonies, which Israel's generals knew would quickly become an impossible burden, and an obstacle to manoeuvre, for their troops. Indeed, the last war that Israel won ‘elegantly' — in the way that Netanyahu imagines that wars should be won — began from the supposedly ‘indefensible' 1967 lines.
That is no accident. Israel's occupation of Arab lands in that war, and its subsequent deployment of military forces amid the Arab population of the West Bank and close to the powerful military machines of Egypt in the south and Syria in the north, exposed it to Palestinian resistance from the east. At the same time, occupation denied Israel's army the advantage of a buffer — the demilitarised zones that were the key to the 1967 war against both Egypt and Syria.

For borders to be defensible, they need first to be legitimate and internationally recognised. But Netanyahu does not really trust ‘the gentiles' to supply that type of international recognition of Israel's borders, not even when America is behind him, and not even when Israel today has the most powerful military capabilities in the Middle East.

The son of a renowned historian who served as the personal secretary of Zeev Jabotinski, the founder of the Zionist right, Netanyahu absorbed from childhood his father's interpretation of Jewish history as a series of tragedies.


The lesson was simple: the gentiles cannot be relied upon, for Jewish history is one of betrayal and extermination at their hands. The only remedy to our fragile existence in the diaspora lies in the return to the "Land of Israel". Our Arab neighbours should never be trusted; hence, as Jabotinski preached, the new Israeli nation must erect an Iron Wall of Jewish power to deter its enemies forever.
To be fair, such an existential philosophy was not the right's monopoly. The legendary General Moshe Dayan, who was born in a socialist Kibbutz on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, was no less a sceptic about the chances of coexisting with the Palestinians. A gifted orator, this is how he put it in a eulogy to a fallen soldier in 1956:

"Let us not be deterred from seeing the loathing that is inflaming and filling the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who live around us. Let us not avert our eyes lest our arms weaken… This is the fate of our generation, this is our life choice, to be prepared and armed, strong and determined, lest the sword be stricken from our fist and our lives cut down…. We are a generation of settlers [colonists], and, without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire, we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home."

Yet the same Dayan, who in 1970 said that "the only peace negotiations are those where we ... [colonise] the land and we build ... and from time to time we go to war," was forced by cruel reality to admit that the best security to which Israel can aspire is that based on peace with its neighbours. Eventually, he became the architect of a historic peace with Egypt. His book Are We Truly Condemned to Live by the Sword to Eternity? marked the transformation of the soldier into a statesman.

If Netanyahu is ever to lead a historic reconciliation with the Palestinian people, he should start by endorsing a courageous, almost post-Zionist insight reflected in Dayan's 1956 eulogy. Fully aware of the bitter legacy of Palestinian disinheritance following the 1948 war, Dayan refused to blame them. On the contrary, he understood their ‘burning hatred.'

Unfortunately, Israel today has a prime minister with the mentality of a platoon commander who nonetheless likes to cast himself as a latter day Churchill fighting the forces of evil bent on destroying the Third Jewish Temple.

Of course, a great leader must always have a sense of history. But, as the French philosopher Paul Valéry put it, history, "the science of things which are not repeated," is also "the most dangerous product which the chemistry of the intellect has ever evolved," especially when manipulated by politicians.

Menachem Begin, a hawkish predecessor of Netanyahu as prime minister, once had the insolence to say to the great historian Yaakov Talmon that, "when it comes to the twentieth century, I am more an expert than you are."

Talmon responded with "The Fatherland is Imperiled," a pivotal article whose conclusions are as relevant today as they were in 1981. Not until occupation ends, Israel lives within internationally recognised borders, and the Palestinians recover their dignity as a nation will the Jewish state's existence be finally secured.

By Shlomo Ben Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister who serves as Vice-President of the Toledo international Centre for Peace, is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: the Israeli-Arab Tragedy.
Related Links:
Jerusalem, Covenant, Chosen Race:

With Israel continuing to expand Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem , squeezing and displacing the Palestinian residents under the banner of an undivided Israeli capital (a claim rejected by most of the world), the Palestinian ...
Moreover, and in addition to the continuing confiscation of Palestinian lands inside Israel, in East Jerusalem, and in the West Bank, Israel has extended it discriminatory laws and enacted new ones to privilege the ...
Lior issued an edict to kill all Palestinian civilians, including women and children and is now advocating the destruction of the Al Haram Al Sharif in occupied Jerusalem in order to build the Jewish temple on its site. ...

Popular posts from this blog

A historic moment in the Arab world

لحظة تاريخية في العالم العربي
As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera's director-general, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what's happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond. In the first talk posted online from the TED 2011 conference in California, Khanfar describes the powerful moment when people realised they could step out of their homes and ask for change. "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير العام والأسهم وجهة نظر متفائلة بشكل كبير ما يحدث في مصر وتونس وليبيا وخارجها. وفي اول حديث له نشر على الانترنت من مؤتمر تيد 2011 في ولاية كاليفورنيا ، خنفر يصف لحظة قوية عند الناس أدركت أنها لا يمكن الخروج من منازلهم ونطلب من أجل التغيير."
http://www.ted.com/talks/wadah_khanfar_a_historic_moment_in_the_arab_world.html This talk was given on March 1, 2011 in Long Beach, California. TED 2011 is taking place between March 1 and Mar…

Our Captured, Wounded Hearts: Arundhati Roy On Balakot, Kashmir And India

With his reckless “pre-emptive” airstrike on Balakot in Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inadvertently undone what previous Indian governments almost miraculously, succeeded in doing for decades. Since 1947 the Indian Government has bristled at any suggestion that the conflict in Kashmir could be resolved by international arbitration, insisting that it is an “internal matter.” By goading Pakistan into a counter-strike, and so making India and Pakistan the only two nuclear powers in history to have bombed each other, Modi has internationalised the Kashmir dispute. He has demonstrated to the world that Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous place on earth, the flash-point for nuclear war. Every person, country, and organisation that worries about the prospect of nuclear war has the right to intervene and do everything in its power to prevent it.  Keep reading  >>>>


India has built around itself an aura of a global power whose time has come. For at least the last t…

Kashmir Jihad - Analysis & Options

PDF: http://bit.ly/2k0Vqpm

Kashmir is an incomplete agenda of partition of India. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars on this issue. According to UN resolutions, Kashmiris have to decide their accession to Pakistan or India through impartial plebiscite, which could not take place due to Indian reluctance. Recently, India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to Kashmir, it was done to unilaterally integrate occupied Kashmir. This is a violation of the UN resolutions and the Simla bilateral agreement, which demands to maintain status quo until the final settlement. The US and world powers are emphasizing that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally, though India has refused to hold talks with Pakistan. In the present scenario, while India has turned Kashmir into the largest prison of 9 million people, denying basic human rights and oppressing the Kashmiris' who want freedom from India, Pakistan cannot watch as a silent spec…