This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Outstanding Explanation Why Israel can't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share!


outstanding Explanation: Why Israel can't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share

=Please share this video=

go site of the creator

The ACTUAL Truth About Palestine in response to Danny Ayalon

Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon in a video titled Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank told lies and FALSE historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Here 2 courageous Palestinian ladies responding with facts to all the lies he told in the video.

Dana Dajani
Lara Sawalha
Directed by STANDUb.COM (

Creative Team:
- Wedad Irshaid
-Tasnmeem Tamimi
- Sarah Shawwa
-Ibrahim Walid
-Mai Masri
- Laith Halaweh

داني ايالون نائب وزير الخارجية الإسرائيلي صوّر فيديو مليء بالأكاذيب عن تاريخ فلسطين وحقيقة وجودها، في هذا الفيديو فتاتان فلسطينيتان تردان عليه بالحقائق وتوضحان تاريخ وجود فلسطين

لارا صوالحة
دانة دجاني
Directed by STANDUb.COM (

فريق العمل:
وداد ارشيد
تسنيم تميمي
سارة الشوا
ابراهيم وليد
مي مصري
ليث حلاوة

Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank (Shorter Version)

This is the abridged version of Danny Ayalon's video. It's a great video, but he talks WAY too much. This version gets right to the point.

Here is the link to the full version:

Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms West Bank, occupied territories and 67 Borders originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied.

Israel and Palestine: Achieving a Two-State Solution

(Visit: Using specially commissioned interactive maps to display alternative solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, David Makovsky and Ghaith al-Omari argue that a two-state solution based on land-swaps is the only viable one for the future. The core principle of these swaps is to reconcile the Palestinian demand for a return to the pre-1967 lines with Israel's desire to include as many of the West Bank's 300,000 settlers in Israel proper as possible. They argue that any feasible scenario must include Israel's granting Palestinians arable land from within Israel's pre-1967 border in exchange for annexed settlement blocs (clusters of settlements) and that it is essential that, for any land annexed by Israel as part of a deal, Palestinians receive equal amounts of land. David Makovsky is the Director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ghaith al-Omari is the Executive Director of the American Task Force on Palestine. Series: Herman P. and Sophia Taubman Endowed Symposia in Jewish Studies [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 24895]

Democracy, nationalism and populism: The US, Israel, and beyond

On October 7, Brookings hosted an expert panel to discuss the tensions between populist, nationalist, and democratic impulses around the world today, including in the United States and Israel.

(transcript available)


Follow Brookings on social media!

Obama Why Israel mustn't withdraw to its pre '67 borders.FLV

Israel must retain her Defensible borders.

israel,obama,67 borders..war?

try and find current news on in full screen.shady goings on around the ranch partners.


Great insight into why Israel MUST HAVE DEFENSIBLE BORDERS.
Please make your comments known to Jerry Rose.
TLN © ® Productions, Inc

International Law Expert: Israel Is Not an “Occupier”

Israel Is Not an “Occupier”

International law defines “occupation” as one power occupying the lands of a foreign sovereign. In Israel's case, Israel is not occupying any foreign sovereign’s land; Israel entered the area known as the West Bank in 1967 and took over the authority to administer the land from Jordan, which was never considered to be a sovereign in the area.

In actual fact, Israel and the Jewish people have got claims to the area that go far back into history. Anybody who reads the Bible can appreciate the fact that there is a very solid historic legal basis to the claim of Israel with respect to the territories and therefore Israel considers the territories not to be occupied, not to be Palestinian, but as in dispute.

We appreciate that the Palestinians also have claims with respect to the territory. Israel considers that its claims are far better based and better documented than any other claims, but Israel is committed to conduct negotiations with the Palestinians in order to find a permanent settlement to the issue.

The Jordanians, who occupied the territory after the 1948 war, annexed it, but this annexation was never really recognized or acknowledged by the international community. At a later stage the king of Jordan voluntarily gave up any Jordanian sovereignty or claim to the territories to the Palestinian people. So the Jordanians came and went, and the issue remains an issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

“Palestinian Territories” Is Not a Legal Term

The international community’s constant referral to the “Palestinian territories” is a complete fallacy and has absolutely no legal or political basis. There has never been a Palestinian state, as such, and therefore the territories never belonged to any Palestinian entity. There's no international agreement, there's no contract, there's no treaty, and there's no binding international resolution that determines that the territories belong to the Palestinians.

In actual fact, even the Palestinians themselves, in the Oslo agreement that they signed with Israel, acknowledge the fact that the ultimate permanent status of the territory is to be determined by negotiations. Therefore, even the Palestinians accept the fact that this is not Palestinian territory, its disputed territory whose status is yet to be settled.

If the local population owns land, then the administrative power isn't allowed to take the land or use it. But if the land is not private, the administering power can use the land and enjoy the fruits of the land until sovereignty has been finally determined. So Israel justifiably can use land which is not private land, which is public land, for establishing settlements as long as these settlements don't take away the private rights of the local population. Therefore, in our opinion, the settlements are not illegitimate.

The Settlements Are Not Illegitimate

There's one other point, the issue of settlements is a negotiating issue. The Palestinians have agreed with the Israelis that the issue of settlements is one of the issues on the permanent status negotiating table. Therefore, anybody who comes along and claims that Israel’s settlements are illegitimate – whether it's the EU, whether it’s individual governments, whether it is the secretary of state of the United States, who said so specifically, or the spokesman of the State Department – they’re prejudging a negotiating issue, which is clearly incompatible with any negotiating principle.

These are issues that have to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Therefore, nobody can claim that the settlements are illegitimate or that they're illegal, as such. They have to be negotiated between the parties.

There's No Such Thing as 1967 Borders

There's no such thing as 1967 borders. A border is a line between two sovereign entities. In 1967, there was a ceasefire line that had existed since the 1948-1949 war between the Arab states and Israel and after Israel declared its independence. The Jordanians insisted on inserting in the Armistice Agreement of 1949 a provision which says that the armistice demarcation line is not the final border. Final borders can only be determined in peace negotiations between the parties. So “1967 borders” is a non-existent term and anybody using this term – again, including the U.S. administration and the EU – are simply being misled.

See also Ten False Assumptions Regarding Israel by Alan Baker. ( )

Amb. Alan Baker is Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.

Israels Defensible Borders

The Jewish Standard

Ever wonder why Israel doesn't just withdraw to its 1948 borders, approved by the UN. Wouldn't life be simpler? Wouldn't the wars end? This video, by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, made prior to the current conflict in Gaza, sums up the perspective opposing withdrawal from the land won in the 1967 Six Day War quite well

Fmr. Israeli Ambassador: 1967 Borders Are Indefensible

Dan Gillerman, former ambassador to the UN and a Fox News Contributor, spoke to Bill about Obama's call for Israel to return to 1967 borders, saying most people are unaware of how small Israel is and is surrounded by enemies or countries who threaten its existence.

Netanyahu Schools Obama on '67 borders

Netanyahu Schools Obama on '67 borders

Evolution of Israel & Palestine borders (1946-2016)

How much did Israel acquire? How much did Palestine lose?

The lighter colours mean that the terrain was attacked, disputed or claimed by another country (as the Zone C of West Bank is still claimed by PA, although these territories are ruled by Israel)

I'm neither anti-Palestinian nor anti-Israeli. The borders are mainly approximate and some colors may not be perfect, I was just testing my movie editor ;) Enjoy :)

Obama on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Borders Should Be Based on 1967 Lines

In a speech on the Middle East Thursday, President Obama gave what was to some an unexpected stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in stating that the United States believes the borders for the two countries should follow 1967 lines. The president began his remarks on the region by discussing the challenges plaguing both nations, but saying that the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.

President Obama concluded by saying that in order to reach a resolution that is just and fair, an agreement must respect the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. In the end, he said, the choice must be between hate and hope; the shackles of the past, or the promise of the future.

Israel You Can't Destroy It (Please share)

Israel You Can't Destroy It.

Obama Sides With Palestinians: Israel & Palestine Must Return To 1967 Borders

John McCain Reacts to President's 1967 Border Plan for Israel

Last night, John McCain spoke to Sean Hannity about the president's remarks that the Israel-Palestine borders should follow lines set up in 1967. McCain said, We all want peace talks, we all want a settlement. However, McCain says you have to get both sides to sit down at the table, and that If you truly are committed to change, first thing you need to do is commit to your recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist.

For more from the Fox News Insider, check out

Israel vs. Hamas: The Firepower

CNN's Tom Foreman uses CNN's virtual studio to show us the firepower on both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Netanyahu Confirms Agreement To 1967 Borders. What Happens Next?

China Blasts US. Iran in the News. Men of the Bible-David. Jesus is God and Man.

Ehud Olmert: Territorial Solutions and Jerusalem

Prime Minister Olmert comments on territorial solutions involving the 1967 borders and sharing control of Jerusalem to foster peace.



Check Also