Should Israel revert to pre-'67 boundaries

[AndyHB]

... or perhaps even 63BC boundaries?  http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-not-go-back-to-israels-63bc-lines.html

[Martin]

As far as international law is concerned Israel should revert to its pre-'67 boundaries, and the US and Britain should have be putting pressure on them to do so for decades.  Practically I think the solution wil have to be the pre-67 boundaries with land swaps, but from a purely moral standpoint, I think that the control of the occupied territories should revert to the Palestinians who should have the right to tell Israelis living in the the occupied territories to leave.  I also think, morally, that the Israelis should pay the Palestinians massive compensation.

A two state agreement with the pre-'67 boundaries and agreed land swaps, while it might be the best that is achievable, will almost certainly be massively in favour of the Israelis, because it will be an agreement between the powerful and the powerless, and will  therefore be one where the Palestinian people will tend to get the worst land and a poor deal.  Might is right will once again be seen to be the truth of the matter.  But at least it would be something.

[Boudi]

Yes, the pre 67 boundaries, and this should be enforced once the surrounding states accept Israel's right to exist.

[tranchiebabe]

I am sorry Israel exists as a State, but it does and that can't be remedied, however it must be made to revert to its pre 67 borders, by force if necessary.

[administrator]

Whilst the west flout international law on an almolst daily basis..who are we to tell Israel to change it's boundaries.

I am sorry Israel exists as a State, but it does and that can't be remedied,
however it must be made to revert to its pre 67 borders, by force if necessary

.
They have nuclear warheads!, so the idea that we in the west will force them to do anything is hilarious.

[AndyHB]

I am sorry Israel exists as a State, ...

Why do you feel this, T?  After all, they have as much right to a home as any other nation, and this is - after all - where they were dispersed from.  Is it the reason for their dispersion - the revolt post AD 66 - that makes you feel that they shouldn't be allowed back?

[Boudi]

If you go down that line isn't it the case that they took the place by force, therefore displacing the real occupants?

[AndrewF]

I agree with the principle of the pre '67 boundaries with the inevitable land-swaps, but think these need to be very carefully adjudicated for fairness by a mutually-agreed independent 3rd party - for example www.theelders.org/