Monthly Archives: May 2011

Why It Matters Whether The 1967 Borders Are the Baseline for “Peace” Negotiations

Netanyahu said much that was good today during his speech before Congress. But there’s one issue that he didn’t quite nail, and I wish he would have.

Leave aside the fact that one should never have to “negotiate” for “peace,” where “peace” means that your neighbors stop attacking you without any justification. The point I made on my podcast on Sunday was that, even if both Obama and Netanyahu agree that the 1967 borders would not be the final result of any negotiations between Israel and the “Palestinians” (Obama referred to his use of the phrase “land swaps” as entailing this), it still makes all the difference whether the parties to the “negotiations” conceive of those borders as the baseline, as the starting point.

To say that those borders are, even implicitly, the starting point of the negotiations, is to concede something that couldn’t be further from the truth: the idea that Israel was not justified in taking the land it took during the Six-Day War. To accept the 1967 borders as a starting point is to deny that in 1967 Israel was fighting a proper war of self defense, that it took that land because doing so was necessary to eliminate the threat against its citizens’ lives, and that it was therefore justified in doing so.

Netanyahu nearly said that he rejected those borders as a starting point, when today he mentioned specific territories that must remain part of Israel. But he did not explicitly reject the idea of the 1967 borders as a starting point, only the idea that they would be an ending point. Perhaps not explicitly rejecting them as a starting point was just one of the many “generous concessions” Netanyahu is prepared to make for “peace.”

I think the 2011 borders should be both the starting point and the ending point. I wish Netanyahu agreed.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #14

The (Non)Rapture. Obama’s call for Israel to use pre-1967 borders as starting point for “peace” negotiations. Obama’s reaction to GOP Senators’ request that he adhere to the War Powers Act with respect to Libya. What to do about Pakistan. The Obama Administration’s brand of “transparency”. Planking.

If you were unable to attend live and would like to hear this week’s webcast/podcast, click here, or you can access it via iTunes (link on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>> ).

Thanks to all who participated live in this week’s webcast. Use the comments portion of this post to leave comments, and to suggest topics for next week. Also, if you are enjoying the podcasts, don’t forget to “Like” the show’s page on Facebook (link on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>), plus leave ratings and reviews in iTunes.

If you would like to register to attend next Sunday’s webcast live, click here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

Reminder to Register for Today’s Live Webcast

Every Sunday I conduct a live webcast in which I discuss news and politics from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. You are welcome to get in on the discussion today, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., PST.

If you join in live, you’ll have the ability to communicate with me via text chat and also via audio either by using a USB mic connected to your computer (VoIP) or by phone. Click here to register.

The topics I have planned for today: Obama’s call for Israel to accept, as a starting point for “peace” negotiations, its pre-1967 borders (even after meeting with Netanyahu). Obama responds to Senators’ inquiry regarding his compliance with the War Powers Act with respect to Libya. What should we do about Pakistan? When Obama promised “transparency” in his Administration, did he mean our lives would be more transparent to him? And more.

Leave a comment

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard