By J. Randolph Evans
Over the next 60-90 days, one very important issue will be front and center on the international stage. That issue is what should constitute the State of Israel’s borders. As the only proven democracy in the Middle East, and one of America’s most reliable allies, Israel’s future could not be more important to long term world peace.
The changing international dynamics are due in large part to President Barack Obama’s public announcement that he believes Israel should retreat to the borders that existed before 1967. Sensing a real opportunity, Arab states are moving decisively forward in the United Nations to force the issue.
Stripping away all sophistry and rhetoric, the core issue in this debate centers on whether Israel has the right to even exist. This seems like a rather absurd question with an obvious answer – of course, Israel has the right to exist. Unfortunately, that is not the answer for many government leaders around the world including some in the United States.
The problem is that it is not always easy to separate lip service expressing support for Israel from a real commitment to Israel’s right to exist and survive. Actions really do speak much louder than words on this issue.
Most of the time, it is easy to determine where folks stand on Israel’s right to exist. For example, Syria and other Arab ruled countries have openly and emphatically rejected resolutions that directly or implicitly recognize Israel’s right to exist. Indeed, one of the principle impediments to peace has been and continues to be the refusal of various groups, particularly Hamas, to “recognize Israel,” “recognize Israel’s existence,” or “recognize Israel’s right to exist.”
Notably, some authors like John V. Whitbeck (author of “The World According To Whitbeck”) insist that “the demand that Hamas recognize ‘Israel’s right to exist’ is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet.” Whitbeck has served as an advisor to the Palestinians.
There are some who are even more extreme. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only publicly and unabashedly refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state, but he goes so far as to say that Israel should “vanish from the pages of time.”
Of course, with statements like these, it is pretty easy to determine where these people stand. These folks are dangerous to world peace and to the United States.
Unfortunately, there is another dangerous category. They are the stealth opponents of Israel. They flower their rhetoric with conspicuous statements of support for Israel while insisting on policies that threaten Israel and its ability to exist. These folks are either naïve or deceptive. Either way, the substance of their positions makes clear that the words of their support are empty and hollow. The issue of Israel’s borders is a good measure of these folks.
Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948. Immediately, surrounding Arab states attacked it. After a year of war, there was a cease-fire with temporary borders. In June 1967, Israel moved to protect itself from escalating mobilization by Arab militaries. The war lasted six days. Since then, Israel has successfully defended itself and repelled various attempts to invade it. Basically, the 1967 borders have held for 44 years.
Now, President Obama and Arab States want to change all of that. The very ability of Israel to survive is at risk.
In a meeting with President Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: “While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible.”
Effectively, a return to the 1967 borders would predetermine the ability of Israel to continue to exist. Arab states know this. After the lecture from Prime Minister Netanyahu on national television, President Obama knows this. The indefensibility of the 1967 borders is because of the geography and size of the area, population concentrations, and the history of conflict in the region. The 1967 borders would make most of Israel susceptible to missile attack by hostile terrorist neighbors, and potentially divide the nation into two separate land masses. A return to the 1967 borders would mean, in practical terms, the beginning of the end for the State of Israel.
Presidents and politicians who insist on indefensible borders are really saying Israel should be indefensible. The 1967 borders are just the latest politically correct way of professing support for Israel while insisting on conditions that make its ability to exist impossible. Adding insult to injury, this week the Obama/Clinton State Department indicated it would recognize Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a Muslim extremist group that refuses to recognize Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu put it best when he said: “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence.” Of course, that assumes that Israel’s existence is not exactly the price President Obama intended.