Israel Matzav

More to the 'settlement blocs' than 'natural growth'

Rick Richman reminds us that there's something much more important about the 'settlement blocs' than how many babies are born there every year.

The more important point, however, is that the major settlement blocs are located on strategic high ground, or in other militarily significant locations, which are undoubtedly part of the “defensible borders” promised to Israel in the 2004 Bush Letter — as part of an agreement relating to the Gaza disengagement that should be deemed “enforceable.” There is no definition of “defensible borders” in the letter, but the one thing everyone knows it does not mean is the 1967 borders.

It is ludicrous for the U.S. to be negotiating with Israel on the number of births that can be permitted in areas already effectively promised to Israel as part of the borders necessary to defend itself — unless the Obama administration plans to break that promise as well.

That actually goes back a lot longer than the Bush letter. Here's UN Security Council Resolution 242, which also seems to contemplate something other than the 1967 borders. It calls for

...the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories [Note - territories and not "the territories." The draftsmen have said that it was intended that Israel not have to withdraw from all the territory liberated in 1967. CiJ] occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force....

If those 'settlement blocs' are necessary for 'defensible borders,' they are also necessary for 'secure and recognized boundaries.'

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:03 PM