The 1967 Borders Dilemma, Obama, and Netanyahu

By now surely you've heard it. Obama said something concerning peace between Palestine and Israel and used the term 1967 borders. Then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went nuts, explaining that Israel will never go back to those borders because of certain "circumstances."

This is what the Washington Post said about Obama's speech:

The president pressed Israel, in unusually frank terms, to reach a final peace agreement with the Palestinians, citing the boundaries in place on the eve of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War as the starting point for negotiation about borders.

In there is a key word that nearly all ardent supporters of Israel and PM Netanyahu himself continue to ignore - it's the part where it says "a starting point for negotiations," meaning that 1967 borders are not the be-all-end-all or the finishing point for negotiations. No, Obama means that the two sides should start with those borders.

You may be asking yourself, "What are the 1967 borders I hear so much about?" Many people do not have any idea what "1967 borders" means, and it's a term that's strewn about so often you'd think that everyone and their dog knows what it means. Well, before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel did not occupy Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem, but during the course of the war, much of that land was claimed via military victories by Israel away from countries like Jordan (West Bank and East Jerusalem), Lebanon (Golan Heights), and Egypt (Gaza Strip).

These are "1967" Borders

Israel has since left the Gaza Strip and pulled all of its citizens and military out of the area, which is now controlled by militant group Hamas, which actually won elections to garner control of the territory, but Israel still considers the land to be in Israel.

As for those "circumstances" that Netanyahu is always talking about, well he is referring to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, some with considerably large populations. This "problem" was created by the Israeli government and has become a wedge in any potential peace agreement.

So what Obama is doing something very smart by prodding along the peace process by mentioning 1967 borders as a guideline. Of course, Israel would probably never split up Jerusalem, and Palestinians probably wouldn't accept any agreement without some part of Jerusalem or at least easy access to the Old City and the Temple Mount (one of the holiest sites in Islam).

But Obama was also concise and realistic about borders, he explained that "mutually-agreed land swaps" would also be part of a deal on borders. This is so most of those Israeli settlements can stay in Israel-proper, even Netanyahu conceded that Israel would not be able to attain all settlements in a peace deal.

Netanyahu is the current prime minister in one of the most conservative, hard-line Israeli governments in a long time, so while he talks about any kind of peace, he is really not getting anything done at all. His criticisms of Obama stem from not really wanting to get any sort of peace agreement finished.

Of course there are many other issues that Palestinians and Israelis would have to come to agreements on including Palestinian "right of return" (the return of Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced from their homes during the 1948, 1967, and 1973 wars) and many other splintering issues.

Then again, with the recent peace treaty signed by Hamas and Fatah, usual political rivals, and Hamas' status as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Israel, a deal doesn't seem likely terribly soon. But then again, most Palestinians apparently think I may be wrong.

But keep your chin up Obama and Palestine, you've got some time.