Go to the "Reclaiming Israel's Future" Campaign Homepage

Some Hard Truths about Borders & Security…

• When considering the defensibility of future borders, it is critical to distinguish between legitimate concerns and the manipulation of these concerns for political and ideological purposes. Israel has legitimate security concerns related to its future borders. Misrepresenting facts or ignoring overarching Israeli national interests when discussing such concerns is often blatant manipulation, generally to advance an ideological "Greater Israel" agenda.

• Future borders will be the result of negotiations, based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed-on land swaps. Nobody can force Israel to accept the 1967 lines as a permanent and official border between the West Bank and Israel (and nobody serious is trying to do so). Likewise, Israel cannot unilaterally dictate borders, whether through facts on the ground like settlement construction or the separation barrier, or through legislation. Efforts by Israel to do so will never be accepted by the Palestinians or viewed as legitimate by the international community.

• While an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank will involve some security risks, these risks in no way render borders in a future two-state agreement "indefensible," as opponents of such an agreement may suggest. The national security benefits for Israel of a peace agreement with the Palestinians – one that involves robust security arrangements and leaves Israel with universally recognized sovereign borders – far outweigh the risks.

• Negotiations can produce a permanent border for Israel that meets its security needs. Israel will insist, with reason, on arrangements that satisfy its legitimate security needs – needs which Palestinian leaders have in the past indicated they recognize. Any peace agreement will require far-reaching verification measures and guarantees, and may involve both the parties to the treaty and third-party monitors and guarantors.

• The IDF's presence in the West Bank provides some security benefits for Israel. However, it doesn't guarantee against the infiltration of terrorists and the smuggling of weapons into the West Bank, or terrorist attacks, either inside the West Bank or in Israel. It involves huge security sacrifices for Israel, including harming army morale and leaving Israel's forces unprepared to handle serious external security threats. It cannot prevent the growth of extremist ideology and hatred of Israel and may, in fact, contribute to both, with the continued military occupation undermining the credibility of those Palestinians who argue against violence and who support the idea of a negotiated, two-state, conflict-ending agreement with Israel.

• The PA has demonstrated its ability to fight terrorism in the West Bank and to cooperate with Israel's security authorities, even with the West Bank still under occupation. U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation over the past decade has shown strong results, with PA forces effectively establishing law and order - and taking action against extremists - in areas under their control. Indeed, Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the effort. As part of a peace agreement, security cooperation would most likely go even further. Similarly, recognized borders established through durable peace agreements make for good neighbors with whom mutually-beneficial security cooperation can thrive – as Israel has seen with both Jordan and Egypt, even during times of crisis and upheaval.

• It cannot be seriously argued today that Israel needs the West Bank as territorial depth or as a security buffer. Territorial depth - particularly when measured in single miles rather than in tens or hundreds of miles - is almost insignificant in an age of intermediate-range and long-range missiles. Holding on to the West Bank does not provide Israel additional meaningful strategic depth with respect to such a threat. Furthermore, by virtue of both topography and Israel’s superb military capabilities, it cannot be seriously argued that Israel needs the West Bank as a buffer to fend off an invasion by foreign armies from the east, through the West Bank.

• A peace agreement would strengthen Israel's ability to deter and defend against terrorist attacks. Israel's ability to inflict pain militarily against those who threaten it – Hizballah and Hamas, for example – is unquestioned. Absent a peace agreement, Israel's right to do so is often challenged. With an end to the occupation and the establishment of universally recognized borders, Israel's right to use force to defend these borders and its sovereign territory from attack will no longer be open to challenge, rendering Israel's military deterrence exponentially stronger.

• Israel should not repeat the mistake it made in Gaza by picking up and leaving the West Bank unilaterally. In the Gaza context, Israel's unilateral withdrawal - and implicit snub of President Abbas and the entire notion of negotiations - played into the hands of Hamas and other extremists. In contrast, a negotiated withdrawal – as part of a process that leads to the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel – can provide credibility for non-extremist Palestinian leaders, strengthening them and enhancing their ability to govern, and to live up to Palestinian security obligations, after an Israeli withdrawal.

Return to the Main "Borders and Security" Page

Israeli strategic affairs expert, Brigadier General (Ret.) Shlomo Brom, is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv, Israel's leading national security think tank. He is also one of the leaders of the Council on Peace and Security, an organization that brings together hundreds of high-ranking members from Israel's security and diplomacy establishments to support a viable and sustainable peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East as a necessary step towards ensuring Israel's security and social resilience and maintaining its democratic foundation in the long-term.

In 2011, Brom authored a short report for the Council on future defensible borders between Israel and the state of Palestine in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The report concludes that the 1967 lines, with reasonable land swaps, would be defensible borders between Israel and the West Bank portion of the future state of Palestine. We asked Brig. Gen. Brom, the former top strategic planner of the IDF, to explain why.

by Hamze Awawdeh, APN Summer Intern

On the eve of the holy month of Ramadan this year, excitement, spirituality and happiness are conflicting with fear, sadness and desperation over last week’s incidents in the West Bank: the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers and the killing of five young Palestinians.

For me, however, this year’s Ramadan experience is very special. I am spending this month in Washington DC, far from my family in the West Bank town of Doura, near Hebron, and far from the quick escalation on the ground. Moreover, I am working for Americans for Peace Now, the Jewish pro-Israel, pro-peace organization that is lobbying for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution. 

• Don't miss APN's Podcast with Brigadier General (Ret.) Shlomo Brom on future defensible borders between Israel and the state of Palestine in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
• Listen to Israeli strategic affairs expert Yossi Alpher, author of "Hard Questions Tough Answers," APN's weekly news analysis, on the current Israeli-Palestinian security crisis and its repercussions.
• Download and use Facts on the Ground: APN’s Map App. Use this map to explore the data we have collected about borders and check it regularly to see updates.
• Read and share the"Does more land mean more security?" chapter from APN’s landmark publication, “They Say, We Say”.
• Watch APN’s "Mandy Patinkin Speaking at Peace Now Conference."
• Read and Share Articles from APN:

  Borders & Security:

  • Dov Weisglass in Yedioth Achronoth: Bar-Lev Line in the Jordan Valley (December 30, 2014)
  • Yariv Oppenheimer in Haaretz: Security for Settlers, Not the State of Israel ( January 1, 2014)
  • Ori Nir for APN: Kerry: The US Submitted Security Ideas to Advance Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations (December 6, 2013)
  • Akiva Eldar in Haaretz: Before the 1967 lines retire, too (November 13, 2012)
  • APN Board member Mandy Patikin speaking at the Peace Now Conference  - http://youtu.be/XdjEALPzbwM  (May 11, 2012)
  • Ronen Bergman and Binyamin Tobias in Yedioth Achronoth: Bibi, It is Possible to Defend Israel from the 1967 Border Lines -Translation by Israel News Today (June 13, 2011)
  • Yossi Alpher for APN: Hard Questions and Tough Answers with Yossi Alpher, Yossi Alpher answers questions about the defensibility of Israel's borders, and the security necessity of a long-term Israeli military presence along the Jordan River. (May 31, 2011)
  • Lara Friedman for APN: The New Zeitgeist: Israeli-Palestinian Status Quo Is Untenable (April 21, 2011)

  
  Borders/Unilateralism:

  • Shaul Arieli in Walla: The Illusion of the Unilateral Solution Translation via Israel News Today, (May 27, 2014)
  • Aviel Magnezi in YNet:  Lapid: Unilateral annexations will lead coalition to collapse (May 27, 2014)
  • Yossi Alpher for APN: Hard Questions and Tough Answers with Yossi Alpher “Are we about to witness a new Israeli unilateral initiative?” (May 27, 2014)
  • Jerusalem Post editorial: One state, two states (May 18, 2014)
  • Lara Friedman in Open Zion: Paved with Good Intentions, Lined with Settlements (March 14, 2013)
  • Lara Friedman in The Huffington Post:  The Two-State Solution Through the Suspension of Disbelief (March 7, 2013)
  • Lara Friedman in The Daily Beast: The Siren Call of Israeli Unilateralism (June 18, 2012)

Return to the Main "Borders/Security" Page

On the second week of APN's Reclaiming Israel's Future campaign, Jerusalem expert Danny Seidemann was our guest on a briefing call. He discusses the latest developments on the ground in East Jerusalem, examines the situation on the ground 47 years after the Six Day War,  and addresses the future of Jerusalem.

Our new campaign re-focuses energy and attention on the challenges to Israel's future as a democracy and a Jewish state. We cover each core issue in this conflict: settlements, Jerusalem, borders and security, hatred and incitement, the conflicting narratives of Israelis and Palestinians, and how to support a two-state solution.