Unfortunately, talk about a "strong and secure Israel," "secured and recognized boundaries" and "defensible borders" have been reduced to fodder for campaign promises and just buzz words. At this point it is likely that the politicians such as Obama who mutters these phrases is unaware of how badly they contradict the policies he promotes--or just does not care.
By Yedidya Atlas
In the years that followed the 1967 Six Day War a prevailing conventional wisdom developed among Western policy makers – especially in Washington — that simultaneously contends that a “strong and secure Israel” should have, as per UN Resolution 242, “secure and recognized boundaries” or simply “defensible borders,” yet nonetheless calls on Israel to make unilateral territorial concessions (today’s PC term is a return to the pre-’67 lines with “mutually agreed land swaps”) as part of an ultimate peace settlement with its Arab neighbors.
Strangely few perceive the inherent contradiction between the call for a “strong and secure Israel” and the call to give up the very territory that would – at minimum – comprise said strength and security.
...There is a basic premise: Israel’s security can be discussed only in terms of national survival. It is necessary to understand the price Israel pays if she unilaterally gives up more of these territories and what she benefits by their retention.
By the same token, we have seen that such promises are made by all politicians who seek the Jewish vote, and we have already seen both Republican and Democrat presidential candidates promise to recognize Israel's capital in Jerusalem and move the US embassy there--only to weasel their way out afterwards.
Atlas goes on to review what these phrases actually mean in light of the actual threats that Israel faces.
Read the whole thing.
Read Israel: Why Land Matters Part II
Read Israel: Why Land Matters Part III
Technorati Tag: Israel.