What about "defensible borders" for Palestine?

When President Obama outlined his not so new vision for peace in the Middle East by saying the 1967 lines should be the baseline for territorial negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, a rather ridiculous debate ensued with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintaining that the 1967 lines were "indefensible."

The debate featured an overtly Zionist narrative with the more hawkish end of the spectrum arguing that the '67 lines were not defensible for a variety of reasons, while others argued otherwise. I don't intend to engage this debate, rather, this is a starting point to underscore just how absurd the mainstream debate about the larger issue really is.

Let's take a look at what President Obama said (emphasis mine):

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

There is plenty to discuss here but the fundamental problem lies in the contrast apparent in the first sentence of the quote: viable vs. secure.

The proposed outcome of American-led negotiations has always been a Palestinians state that is inferior - by design - to its Israeli neighbor. If the mediation was carried out in good faith, we'd be hearing about a secure Palestinian state living side-by-side with a secure Israeli state, but we are not. Instead, the American-led process is facilitating Israeli domination of Palestine either during occupation or after any potential "peace" agreement. If Washington believes Israelis are entitled to security more than Palestinians (as the policy suggests), attempts at American mediation will continue to fail.

That's why the fact that this defensible border debate was even taking place was so absurd. Did anyone even ask if that border would be defensible for Palestine? Was the question even raised by any mainstream American journalists? Of course not. Because the United States constantly views this conflict through the prism of Israeli security instead of mutual security or human rights.

Let's recap a few basic points:

1. Israel occupies Palestine and not the other way around.

2. Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, the states on it's longest borders.

3. Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world with a vast arsenal of offensive weapons.

4. Israel has hundreds of Nuclear Weapons.

5. Per U.S. and Israeli demands, the proposed Palestinian state would have no military.

6. Israel has actively and aggressively colonized Palestinian territory through the use of force, not the other way around.

7. Israeli settlers have a history of aggressive violence against Palestinians and zealously covet Palestinian territory.

And yet, despite all of this, the debate continues to be about whether the '67 lines are defensible for Israel? The logic, if it can be called that, behind the genesis of this debate is that Israelis have legitimate security concerns and the Palestinians do not, therefore, the Palestinians will have to trust the Israelis not to threaten their demilitarized state, but the Israelis can't be expected to trust the Palestinians. The Israelis, the logic assumes, always have good intentions while the Palestinians do not. And if the Israelis ever use force, it must be out of legitimate self-defense and is never put in the context of occupation.

That American policy toward Palestine continues to be based in these flawed and clearly biased assumptions is only further proof that American-led negotiations will not yield a just peace, and that Palestinians have every reason to circumvent them.

Share |