Please join us for a briefing call with Israeli strategic affairs expert Yossi Alpher on Thursday, July 3^rd at 2:00 PM Eastern Time to analyze the security and political situation following the murder of the three Yeshiva students in the West Bank.

The details of the call are as follows:

Date: Thursday, July 3^rd

Time: 2:00 PM (Eastern Time)
Dial-in Number: 951-797-1058
Participant Access Code: 147414

To receive a link of the recording, please email us at kcunningham@peacenow.org 

Americans for Peace Now (APN) stands with the people of Israel as it mourns the death of the three Israeli Yeshiva students, Gil-Ad Shaer, Naftali Frenkel and Eyal Yifrach, who were kidnapped earlier this month in the West Bank. APN strongly condemns the kidnapping and the killing of the three, and sends its condolences to their families. APN calls on the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority and all Palestinian factions, to prevent further escalation and further loss of innocent lives.

APN's planned giving program:

Take us into consideration when thinking about your future. APN remains the best hope for Israel's future. Please take a look at our legacy giving program - another way you can support APN.

This week, Alpher discusses new policy departures, including in the Palestinian sphere, that Netanyahu has justified by citing events in Iraq that affect Israel (see also last week's Hard Questions, Tough Answers); Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's new "peace initiative," whereby a solution to the Palestinian issue would be part and parcel of broader Israel-Arab peace arrangements; Netanyahu's support for an independent Kurdistan, which contradicts US policy; and the continuing West Bank kidnap drama.

YOU can help reclaim Israel's borders and security. Here are actions you can take right now:

• Spread the word. Two of the greatest obstacles to changing Israeli policies are apathy and ignorance. Challenge both. Here are some easy ways:
  • 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.
  • Read and Share APN's honest assessment of the "defensibility" of borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps: Indefensible Borders.
  • Share Facts on the Ground: APN’s Map App on Facebook and Twitter.
  • 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.
  • 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."(below).

Return to the Main "Borders and Security" Page

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