Tracing Back the EU's Policy

As the EU makes clear:-

The purpose of these guidelines is to make a distinction between the State of Israel and the occupied territories when it comes to EU support.

We can trace this back a bit.

In 1980, at Venice, there was this European-initiated move:

The nine member states of the European Economic Community (EEC) will extend their Middle East initiative by submitting a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly based on their Venice declaration of June 30 which stated that the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organization must be associated with the Mideast peace process.

The three crucial points of that Declaration were:

6. A just solution must finally be found to the Palestinian problem, which is not simply one of refugees. The Palestinian people, which is conscious of existing as such, must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination.

In other words, up until then, it was not fully recognized nor accepted that the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine area were engaged specifically in a "nationalist struggle". Do not forget, the UN's 242 spoke of "states" [i.e., respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area...achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;...guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area] and 'Palestine' wasn't a state (nor ever was in history).

8. The Nine recognise the special importance of the role played by the question of Jerusalem for all the parties concerned. The Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem and that any agreement on the city's status should guarantee freedom of access for everyone to the Holy Places.

In other words, Israel's claim to a united Jerusalem was rejected.

9. The Nine stress the need for Israel to put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967, as it has done for part of Sinai.

The language does nod to full withdrawal to 1967 since the Sinai Peninsula was surrendered in toto even if zoned to Egypt.


EOZ suggests that the EU rather recently used the phrase "1967 borders":

I noted that the official EU guidelines that were much discussed since yesterday incorrectly used the phrase "1967 borders" to refer to the 1949 armistice lines; lines that were never national borders and never meant to be national borders.  I just did a quick look through official EU documents and the earliest mention I can find of  the phrase "1967 borders" is this 2002 document, which was quickly followed by a host of others with the same wrong formulation.  It is astonishing that Israel apparently never pushed back on the EU to change that incorrect language.

And two days later, in reaction to that Declaration, the Israeli cabinet stated :

"Nothing will remain of the Venice decision but a bitter memory. The decision calls on us and other nations to bring into the peace process that Arab SS which calls itself 'the Palestine Liberation Organisation'... all men of goodwill in Europe, all men who revere liberty, will see this document as another Munich-like capitulation to totalitarian blackmail and a spur to all those seeking to undermine the Camp David Accords and derail the peace process in the Middle East."

There was an earlier formulation in 1977:

and again, while "borders" as a distinct term is not mentioned, as neither in the 1979 declaration, the intent is clear.  And as that 1979 document clarified:

The Nine deplore any action or declaration that might constitute an obstacle to the quest for peace. In particular, they consider that certain positions adopted by the Israeli Government and certain declarations it has made are of such a nature as to represent an obstacle to the search for such an over-all settlement. This is particularly the case for:

- Israel’s claim of ultimate sovereignty over the occupied territories, a claim incompatible with resolution 242 (1967) which lays down the principle that the acquisition of territories by force is inadmissible...

Unfortunately, as it is wrong.


____________

UPDATE

...Indeed, the Europeans’ own conduct proves that this is not about implementing international law. Many countries in the region occupy foreign territory and even establish settlements there. The most obvious example is Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus; others include Morocco’s subjugation of Western Sahara, fellow Middle East Quarter member Russia’s recent conquest of parts of Georgia, and Armenia’s in Azerbaijan. In none of these cases has the EU promulgated such guidelines – even when it concerns the ongoing Turkish settlement enterprise in the territory of Europe itself. So whatever “law” the EU thinks mandates the Israel rules, it is clearly a law for one nation only.

 
Moreover, the guidelines contain a massive exception that undermine the notion that this about international law rather than EU foreign policy. Article 15 exempts groups that “promot[e] the Middle East peace process in line with EU policy.” Either the Geneva Conventions and related rules prevent Israelis from having anything to do with the West Bank or they do not – but they certainly do not contain a “things the EU likes” exception. The exemption reveals the true purpose of the rules: to promote European foreign policy, not the vindicate international law. Indeed, law is about applying general rules equal to various cases, regardless of one’s sympathies: the unique focus on the Jewish State is the opposite of lawful.

That was Eugene Kontorovich.



^


 

Was Barghouti Convincing Enough?

Marwan Barghouti in court declares "the end of the conflict - withdrawal to the 1967 border".

There's someone who doesn't seem to be all that convinced:-

^

An Analysis of A Media Spin

First we had this from Ma'an on June 23:-

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly agreed to peace talks based on 1967 borders on the condition that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and solve the Palestinian refugee issue outside of Israel's borders.

Then we had this (which may have come from sources at Haaretz who are always using the newspaper as a weapon of subversion to undercut Netanyahu:-

Israel 'ready to negotiate borders with Palestinians'

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has bowed to US pressure by agreeing for the first time that a Palestinian state should roughly follow the contours of the 1967 ceasefire lines separating the West Bank from Israel.

which followed an American pique which the paper tried to 'fix':-

A senior U.S. State Department official told Haaretz Friday that U.S. President Barack Obama is disappointed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction to his Middle East policy, faulting Netanyahu for focusing on the issue of 1967 borders instead of looking at his policy as a whole and especially the alternative he proposed to the unilateral declaration of the Palestinian state at the United Nations.

The JPost got it right:-

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel and the US were working on a document saying the parameters for returning to negotiations with the Palestinians would be based on the speech US President Barack Obama gave at AIPAC in May, and spelling out in greater detail what Obama meant by saying that an agreement should be based on a return to the 1967 lines, with mutual agreed swaps.

Netanyahu told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that “we are interacting with the US to put together a document [for an agreement with the Palestinians] using language from Obama’s second speech [the AIPAC speech].”

This speech explained in greater detail what Obama had said three days earlier at the State Department. That speech raised Netanyahu’s ire because it called for an agreement based on the pre-1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps.

Voice of America went both ways:

Israeli officials say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to negotiate the borders of a future Palestinian state using the 1967 cease-fire line that delineates the West Bank as a starting point for talks.

Sources in the prime minister's office revealed the dramatic policy shift to Israeli media outlets late Monday...Officials said Mr. Netanyahu made clear that Israel will not return to the borders it had before the 1967 Six-Day War. They said demographic changes that have taken place since then - the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - must be taken into account.

The officials also said that in exchange for the concession, Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state and retract a unilateral application for statehood likely to be submitted to the United Nations next month.

And here is the Israel Hayom version 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday that he had reached a written agreement with the Obama administration according to which Israel would not be required to return to the 1967 borders in any future peace deal with the Palestinians. In addition, any future peace talks would take into account established "realities on the ground" - a term generally used in reference to Israel's large settlement blocs of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion.

Netanyahu's statements would mean an effective American ratification of a letter sent in 2004 by former U.S. President George W. Bush to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which guaranteed that the settlement blocs would remain a part of Israel in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians. The current administration, under President Barack Obama, has not publicly endorsed Bush's letter to Sharon. In 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there was no acknowledgment of any such agreement in the official negotiating record between Israel and the Bush administration. "There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which of course people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the U.S. government," Clinton said.

...Prime Minister's Office spokesman Gidi Shmerling clarified on Monday night that the understanding with the U.S. does not include an Israeli agreement to return to the 1967 borders. Rather, the U.S. has acknowledged that any future talks would take into consideration the changes on the ground as well as Israel's security concerns.

 
The anti-concessionist crowd was stirred by this Arutz 7 report:-
 

The Netanyahu government has confirmed it will accept renewed talks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, based on the 1949-1967 borders, if the PA scraps its initiative to ask the United Nations for recognition...In an seeming concession to President Obama, the Prime Minister now is willing to meet with Abbas on condition that the Palestinian Authority withdraw his plan to go the United Nations.

 
which was a bit irresponsible or at the least, unprofessional.


(k/t=ChallahHuAkbar)
 
^

Japan Goes Nuclear

No, not more problems with its reactors.

With Israel and international law.

I caught this report:

The Government of Japan called upon Israel today not to implement the construction of housing units in the West Bank and said it does not recognize any Israeli act that prejudges the final status of the territories in the pre-1967 borders.

Here's the official version.

There were no "1967 borders".

They were lines where military operations, stemming from the Arabs' aggressive onslaught against the nascent state of Israel on the morrow of the UN Security Council recommendation for a resolution based on partition which they didn't accept then nor until, supposedly, 1993 when the PLO 'recognized' Israel.

They were temporary armistice lines. Not borders. And certainly not internationally recognized.

They are part of a myth. They really never existed.

Japan has some border disputes. The one with Russia over the Kuril Islands, for example. Another with Korea.

How are those doing?

^

Me vs. Ron Kampeas

I comment at Ron Kampeas of JTA:

Ron is nonplussed. He writes “I’m not sure how Rubin in the same post gets to Israel giving up the Western Wall”. May I suggest how? (And I also explained it to an American diplomat here in Israel when called for my opinion)

A. The Oslo Accords, Article IV, state “The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period.”.

B. If Obama states that the 1967 lines are a starting point, as I pointed out [http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2011/05/starting-at-1967-lines.html], two things follow - (1) the Arabs, all Arabs, assume that anything and everything on the other side of the former Armistice Lines of 1949 (yes, 1949; let’s move them back from 1967) is theirs. they have put all that territory on their side of the negotiating table; (2) using “start” means well, maybe we can go back further, to the 1947 Partition Lines. Erekat already said that when he tried to deflect the claim that it was the UN already then which defined Israel as the Jewish state. He said, cynically, ‘well, if israel goes back to ‘47, we’ll agree it can be Jewish’ (paraphrased) and see Jonathan Tobin at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/23/hamas-calls-obama-on-borders-raises-the-bet/)

C. In case your readers are unaware, the Western Wall is on the other side of the 1949-1967 Green Line, the Arabs deny the existence of the Temple ever being on the Temple Mount, the claim the Western Wall is Al-Buraq Wall, etc., etc.

D. The US does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over West (yes, WEST) Jerusalem (see the Zivitofksy appeal here: http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/zivotofsky-v-secretary.html) so why would the US be presumed to authomatically support an Israel claim for holding on to a part of “East” Jerusalem?

I think that’s a logical and rational presentation.

What do you think?


Well, this is what SoccerDad thinks:

Sargent spinning



Greg Sargent of the Plum Line is the Washington Post's dedicated left-wing blogger. I don't follow him carefully, but have noticed that recently he seems to be have become fascinated with Israel. More specifically he's been striving mightily to show that President Obama is pro-Israel and hasn't been bullying Israel. The latest focus of Sargent's attention was a conference call last week between an administration official and a number of Jewish leaders, as reported by Eli Lake.

The White House is pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to publicly adopt President Obama’s view that Israel’s pre-1967 borders should be the basis for future peace talks.


A senior administration official Friday told American Jewish leaders that the request for Israel to endorse the president’s peace principles was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations in September.


Steven Simon, the new White House National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, said he was looking to get both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to adopt Mr. Obama’s “principles as a basis for negotiation,” according to a recording of the call played for The Washington Times.

Sargent claims:

The right has been a tear over this ever since the Washington Times reported that Steven Simon, a top White House official on Mideast affairs, told Jewish leaders on the call that the administration is pressing Benjamin Netanyahu to publicly adopt Obama’s stance that the 1967 lines with swaps should be the basis for peace talks. The WashTimes claimed to have listened to audio of the call. The Post’s Jennifer Rubin amplified the claim in a piece that drew wide notice, insisting that this represents an effort to “bully Israel.”


Rubin argued that this represents a departure from Obama’s stated position at his AIPAC speech, in which he reiterated that Israel can’t be expected to sit down with those who want to destroy it. Republican officials pounced. Former Bush official Elliott Abrams argued: “If the reports are right, the U.S. is now abandoning the Quartet Principles — and asking Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian side that includes Hamas without Hamas taking one single step away from terror.”


But the reports are not right, according to two people who were on the call: Alan Solow, the former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Stuart Eizenstat, a former Clinton administration official who has worked extensively on Mideast issues.


They both tell me that there was no discussion whatsoever of pressuring Israel to come to the table absent a recognition by Hamas of the Quartet Principles — which demand recognition of Israel, renouncing terrorism, and abiding by past agreements. They both asserted that on the call, Simon merely restated Obama’s public position on these issues.

But I don't see how Lake's reporting is significantly different from that of Nathan Guttman of the Forward:

Putting the onus on the Israeli side, a senior Obama adviser told Jewish leaders on Friday that the U.S. would like to see Israel re-enter peace talks based on parameters recently set forward by President Obama.


Steve Simon, senior director for Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council, indicated in a conference call with leaders of Jewish organizations that the response so far from the Palestinian side has been more positive than from the Israelis.


“The Palestinians have been fairly forthcoming on this score. So we are kind of comfortable with that, but not completely, and now we are working with the Israeli government to see whether or not they can accept these principles as a basis for negotiations,” he said.


Simon made clear that adopting Obama’s guidelines for resuming peace talks would present the best chance for convincing the Palestinians to withdraw their bid for statehood in September at the United Nations Security Council.

or Natasha Mozgovaya of Ha'aretz

Last week, Steven Simon, the new U.S. National Security Council director for the Middle East and North Africa - replacing Daniel Shapiro, who becomes the ambassador to Israel - warned in a conference call with U.S. Jewish leaders that "we've got basically a month to see if we can work something out with the Israelis and Palestinians on accepting [President Barack Obama's] principles as a basis for negotiations." If that happens, he said, the U.S. administration is "somewhat confident that the Palestinians would drop their action in the UN."


Two major deadlines have been pushed back in the past two and a half years - assessments on the Iranian bomb and "peace agreement in one year." But this one, based on the Palestinians' support and their confidence that this time they're winning - plus Simon's hint that the Palestinians gave a somewhat positive answer to Obama's parameters and Israel is dragging its feet, means now it's for real.

Both Guttman and Mozgovaya are saying that the Obama adminstration is insisting on an answer from Israel. Yesterday Sargent cited Ron Kampeas as agreeing with him, but that doesn't change that Lake's reporting is right in line with how others are reporting the call.


Let's say for a moment that Sargent is correct and President Obama understands that Israel should not negotiate with a government that includes Hamas; so what answer is President Obama insisting on from Israel? That they'll accept his terms if Hamas ever changes or leaves the government? That would be ludicrous.


This isn't exhaustive but here's a statement from Vice President Biden about the announcement of new housing units to be built in Ramat Shlomo:

President Obama and I believe that -- believe that in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, men who I’ve known for a long time, Israeli leaders finally have willing partners who share the goal of peace between two states and have the competence to establish a nation. Their commitment to peace is an opportunity that must be seized. It must be seized. Who has there been better to date, to have the prospect of settling this with? But instead, two days ago the Israeli government announced it would advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. I realize this is a very touchy subject in Israel as well as in my own country. But because that decision, in my view, undermined the trust required for productive negotiations, I -- and at the request of President Obama condemned it immediately and unequivocally. (Applause.)


Now, some legitimately may have been surprised that such a strong supporter of Israel for the last 37 years and beyond, but 37 years as an elected official, how I can speak out so strongly given the ties that I share as well as my country shares with Israel. But quite frankly, folks, sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth. And I appreciate, by the way, the response your Prime Minister today announced this morning that he is putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence of that sort of that sort of events and who clarified that the beginning of actual construction on this particular project would likely take several years -- a statement he put out. That’s significant, because it gives negotiations the time to resolve this, as well as other outstanding issues. Because when it was announced, I was on the West Bank. Everyone there thought it had meant immediately the resumption of the construction of 1,600 new units.


Look, folks, as we move forward I promise you this: The United States will continue to hold both sides accountable for any statements or any actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks. The most important thing is for these talks to go forward and go promptly and go forward in good faith. We can’t delay, because when progress is postponed, extremists exploit our differences and they sow hate.

So according to Biden you only condemn the one you love?


A few weeks ago at AIPAC this is what President Obama said about the Hamas-Fatah merger:

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. (Applause.) And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. (Applause.) No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. (Applause.) And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. (Applause.) And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. (Applause.)


And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. And that is why on Thursday I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims -- the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.

But the administration did not condemn Fatah for joining with Hamas and creating this obstacle. In fact despite acknowledging the obstacle, President Obama tells the Israelis that the status quo is unsustainable, which apparently means that he expects Israel to go forward regardless.


But the Fatah-Hamas agreement is not an obstacle to peace; it is a repudiation of peace. Fatah was legalized because it officially (if insincerely) rejected terror. Now it accepts terror once again. For some reason having Hamas in the government is not unsustainable.

Thank you, DG.
^

"Starting at 1967 Lines"

If will recall, and if not, go here, I raised a red flag over the use of "starting at the 1967 lines" in Obama's speech.

It was used as a headline in many outlets, like this:

Mideast peace talks should start with 1967 borders, Obama says

I wrote:

This phrase - "[the] position that 1967 lines should be the start of negotiations" - is unclear.

If it is the start, does that mean that either Israel goes backwards or is it permitted to go foward territorially/geographically from those armistice lines fixed in 1949 after the first Arab invasion? Or is there to be only Israel that has to pay a price of "territorial compromise"? Isn't what Obama meant is that those are the final borders except from some "swaps"?

Some people thought I was being too fault-finding and persnickety.

Well, read on:

Zahar: Palestinians should not settle for 1967 borders

Hamas leader says 1967 borders not enough, asks Obama why he wouldn't be willing to discuss 1948 borders

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Monday that it was clear that US President Barack Obama's platform was not so different from the one adopted by former US president George W. Bush. According to Zahar, the 1967 borders, while "sacred," were not the final borders on which the Palestinians should settle.

Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked "Why won't we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won't we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?"

Now you understand my concern.

^

Jerusalem is Mostly Pre-67 Lines, Mr. President

Just got off the phone with an American seeking out "perspective".


One point I made was that Obama, in fixing the '67 lines, then to be followed by Jerusalem doesn't make sense and is illogical.  It hurts the entire peace process from an American standpoint (don't worry, I made other points regarding Yesha).

"Don't you grasp," says I, "that he's not only prejudging but he's telling the Arabs all of post-'67 Jerusalem goes to the Arabs and all that's left is to discuss 'arrangements' of getting to the Western Wall, the times of prayer, whether Hebrew U. can stay, if Hadassah can heal, etc.? Why should the Arabs not take advantage of that opening position given them?"

Not only prejudged but ripped Jerusalem out of Israel and is going head-to-head with the majority of the Jewish people.

Pinpointing final status as the 1967 lines awards Arab agression as there's not demand for any territorial compromise on their part.

^

Baker's Got Slightly Wrong Ingredients

Alan Baker has a position paper out at JCPA (and IMRA had it a fortnight ago),

The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders” – No Such Borders Ever Existed

and the executive summary contains these points:

- The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the "1967 borders."
- But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries.
- UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 acknowledged the need for negotiation of secure and recognized boundaries...the previous lines cannot be considered as international boundaries.
- The series of agreements between the PLO and Israel (1993-1999) reaffirm the intention and commitment of the parties to negotiate permanent borders. During all phases of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, there was never any determination as to a border based on the 1967 lines...

As Amb. Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and former Legal Adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry as well as former Ambassador of Israel to Canada explains in the article:

...the Palestinian leadership, as well as members of the international community, are well aware that such borders do not exist, nor have they ever existed. They have never figured in any of the international, agreed-upon documentation concerning the Israel-Arab and Israel-Palestinian issues, and have no basis whatsoever, neither in law nor in fact.

There are no provisions in any of the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians that require withdrawal to the "1967 borders." There were never any geographic imperatives that sanctify the 1967 lines.

But there's a problem.

True, the 1949 armistice lines have no true international legal validity other than being the line where the fighting halted.

Nevertheless, one needs to review the context of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) of the Oslo Accords and see where the Pals. are coming from.

For example:

a)

ARTICLE I
AIM OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

b)

ARTICLE III
ELECTIONS

In order that the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may govern themselves

c)

ARTICLE IV
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period.

and

d)

ARTICLE V
TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

The five-year transitional period will begin upon the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area.

Permanent status negotiations will commence...It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders...The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.

Yes, it is clear from the language that borders are a final status issue but nevertheless, there is no clear indication that the eventual political entity to be formed will not include the integrity of all the territory. The 1949-1967 are not explicity negated and there is room for a good lawyer to make that claim, which is what the Pals. are doing now.

Israel, with Baker and other legal eagles in support, never truly did enough to invalidate those armisticed lines in a political and legal sense and left them as some accidental boundary line instead of quashing their relevance in an official way. The DOP should have included a line like: "nothing in these accords shall be construed to guarantee that any eventual territorial unit shall include all the territory between the former 1949 armistice lines and the border of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan". Too cledver by half is not good enough when defending the Land of Israel.

Whatever comes out of this "oven", the ingredients that went in were insufficient.

^