After Election US Plans Israel Retreat to 1967 Lines

Jewish Press ^ | 5-7-1976

[SJackson]

Throughout the 1970s two issues seem to have been at the forefront of Jewish minds and hearts – the fi ght to free Soviet Jewry and a hope for peace in Jerusalem. That week we reported that “there is a consensus in Washington on a plan to settle the Arab-Israeli war once and for all, by making Israel retreat to its pre- 1967 orders, a Palestinian state will be created in the West Bank....” (Sounds like last week’s newspaper.) There was also a feeling that “prospects for peace in the Mideast are not too bright…and American pressure on Israel…the United States may eventually negotiate with the PLO.” The then-annual Solidarity Sunday for Soviet Jewry took place the week before as “more than 200,000 persons – Jews and non-Jews, young and old, back and white – marched down Fifth Avenue...[in support of] Soviet Jewry.” Among the speakers were then-Governor Hugh Carey, then-Mayor Abraham Beame and then-Manhattan Boro President Percy Sutton.

Article is at the link in PDF format.

[Hoodat]

Are the Egyptians and Jordanians on board for occupying Gaza and the West Bank again?

[Daisyjane69]

Holy shit.

This Catholic gal is going back to bed.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalum.

[SJackson]

When you wake up, note the date :>)

[screaminsunshine]

Obama is trying to destroy Israel along with the USA. Two birds with one stone.

[SJackson]

Note the date. Since you mention Jordan, that was Reagan's position.

Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories, nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza. So, the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give and take of negotiations. But it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just, and lasting peace. We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab—Israeli conflict should be resolved through negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace.

[Happy Rain]

Carter was almost as big an anti-semite as Obama is.

Jimmah bin Mohammed would have suited him.

[Daisyjane69]

I promise to do it when I wake up, as you recommend.

But these haters, exposing our Jewish friends to such risk, are one bunch of dangerous cats.

Despite being Catholic, I was never raised to be anti-Israel (which was fashionable when I was young). In fact, I worked for a large bank (when I was in my 20’s) that was Jewish, and family-owned. They treated me like royalty.

This Obama crowd is truly something else. While I always obidiently said my nighttime prayers for family and the like, this bunch makes me pray for the safety of Israel...every night.

I think these people are nuts.

[screaminsunshine]

We should withdraw totally from all negotiations and back Israel 100%. That is the only way to solve it.

[MindBender26]

This will be the death of Israel.

With those borders, Israel will be less than 9 miles wide at Natanya. At Tel Aviv, she will be less than 12 miles border to border.

With modern missiles having a time of flight at those distances of under one minute, and small, man-portable anti-tank missiles having a range of more than 13 miles kilometers, Israel becomes militarily indefensible.

This will be the death of Israel.... and that is exactly want Obama wants.

[SJackson]

Carter was almost as big an anti-semite as Obama is...Jimmah bin Mohammed would have suited him.

Personally I wouldn't characterize Obama as an antisemite, Carter comes close. But the article is about Gerald Ford.

[SJackson]

Since it's an old article, some old opinions on borders.

An alternate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Map can be found Here
The Pentagon Plan - Joint Chiefs of Staff Map (1974)

Thoughtful military experts have for many years recognized the risks for Israel should it no longer be able to control the territories it acquired in the course of the Six-Day War in June 1967. For example, shortly after the end of that conflict, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that, "From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders."

The Chiefs made the following specific findings:

"The prominent high ground running north-south through the middle of West Jordan [Judea and Samaria] generally...would provide Israel with a militarily defensible border."

"The commanding territory east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 [the Golan Heights]...overlooks the Galilee area. To provide a defense in-depth, Israel would need a strip about 15 miles wide extending from the border of Lebanon to the border of Jordan."

"By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it [was prior to 1967], the strip serve[d] as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage."

"To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position."

…………………………

These findings are as valid today as they were in 1967. In fact, they have been reaffirmed again and again by knowledgeable military professionals. For example, in October 1988, 100 senior U.S. generals and admirals issued a public call for Israel to "retain the Jordan River line as [her] eastern security border" noting that:

"...If Israel loses this line, it would have virtually no warning of attack, its border would be three times longer than the present one. In the midsection of the country it would be 9 to 18 miles from the Mediterranean. Virtually all the population would be subject to artillery bombardment. The plain north of Tel Aviv could be riven by an armored salient within hours. The quick mobilization of its civilian army -- Israel's main hope for survival -- would be disrupted easily, and perhaps irreversibly."

…………………………

In 1991, Lieutenant General Thomas Kelly, the highly respected chief of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm, said, "Israel's control over these areas is the only guarantee, however imperfect, of peace. Their loss is a prescription for war." He added that:

"The West Bank mountains, and especially their approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and all of Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only eight miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible." …………………………

Importantly, the Israeli Defense Forces are under no illusion about the abiding importance of strategic analyses like that performed by the Joint Chiefs. As the IDF Chief of Staff Ehud Barak said in May 1993:

"The 1967 Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum [is] still applicable. The Arab arms are reaching superiority over Israel with a qualitative as well as quantitative edge....If Israel has to retake the territories proposed to be given up, we cannot do it without tremendous casualties."

[Mike Darancette]

Imagine the screwed Palestinians who will have to give up living in a Democracy if Israel reverts back to 67 borders. They’ll probably lose their jobs as well.

[MindBender26]

Well stated, but that was written when POTUS and the JCS wanted to ensure the security and continuance of the State of Israel.

This POTUS has made it clear he wants to assist in the destruction of Israel as soon as he can politically.

[SJackson]

No, not really. That wasn’t done for Israel’s benefit. The 1967 JCS report to Johnson was classified. I don’t think it was made public till the late 80s. If LBJ was concerned about Israel’s survival, he would have honored Eisenhower’s commitment to assure free navigation for Israel through the Straits of Tiran as a condition of abandoning the Sinai in 1958. If he had challenged the Egyptian blockade in May, an act of war, who knows what the impact would have been. LBJ had his reasons, we were busy in Vietnam, and he tried to muster an international response, unsuccessfully. But I wouldn’t credit him with much concern about Israel.

[MindBender26]

I agree that Johnson was not as staunch a supporter of Israel as other presidents, some before him, some after him have been. But for each prior president the need, both moral and practical, for the continued existence of the Jewish state was a given.

For Obama, Israel's destruction would be an answer to his (beautiful morning) prayers in two ways.

First, it would achieve the #1 goal of all Muslims, thew destruction of Israel.

Secondly, it sends an irrefutable message to the rest of the Western world that America does not stand by her friends.... so don't be America’s friend.

We recently sent the same message when Hillary backed Argentina in the call for renewed talks on the Falklands. This was a huge slap at the UK.

When we accept the fact that Obama wants to see the US removed as a world power, then all the rest becomes readily understandable.

Be well

[SJackson]

But for each prior president the need, both moral and practical, for the continued existence of the Jewish state was a given.

I think it is for Obama too. But he's a neophyte, what fool wins an election as he did and turns over his legislative agenda to Pelosi/Reed, rather than driving it as FDR did. Foreign affairs, same thing, kumbaya time, we'll sit down and talk it out. He's clueless. If I had to pick a President who wasn't committed to the existance of Israel, it would be Truman. Good think this isn't a leftist site. Recognition is nice, but an arms embargo, against Israel, while selling arms to the Arabs. Like sending David out against Goliath, not the expected result.

You're correct he want's to see America removed as a world power, I'm not sure how Israel fits into that though. I suspect his policies are simply Rev. Wrights black liberation theology at work. You've got a successful "white" state, vs an unsuccessful "black" terror state. It's obvious who to support. Understanding that in liberation theology black/white equates to rich/poor, privledged/underprivledged. Lots of freepers would understand this guy a lot better if they got off the "He's a Muslim" stuff, and looked at the faith he practiced. Which even Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged was more Marxist than Christianity. But a faith non the less.

[SJackson]

BTW, didn’t mean to ignore the LBJ thing. I don’t think he cared much about Israel, he had a full plate. And post 1967, the Suez was closed to the Soviets. Around Africa to supply North Vietnam. We’ll know eventually, but there are sources, Israeli, that claim Israel approached LBJ to cut a deal for recognition in return for a return to the pre war lines. Jerusalem, perhaps, an issue. I’m told that FOA requests suggest that it’s true, but by lack of response to requests, that LBJ never approached the Arabs, while assuring Israel he had. Not a big issue to me, Vietnam was more important. Israel should have contacted the Arab states through someone else.

[Cyber Liberty]

The “US” (actually, just Obama) can plan an Israeli retreat, but “Israel” knows better.