(map Jewish Virtual library)


The above map is most revealing. These are the Armistice Lines of 1949 and the map shows that an Arab advance through the West Bank (Judea and Samaria as it was then called) could cut Israel in two at the obvious weakest link!

The area in this map is less than the size of Munster, which is ONE of Four of the Irish provinces.

(start analysis by Professor Avi Shlaim here)

Avi Shlaim, PhD, Professor of International Relations at St. Antony’s College, Oxford, in his 2001 book Iron Wall, wrote:
“The postwar territorial status quo was established by the armistice agreements that Israel signed with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria in the first half of 1949… Israel and the Arabs interpreted the armistice agreements very differently. Israel maintained that the agreements gave Israel three indisputable rights. The first right was to an absolute cease-fire, which would be binding not only on regular armies but also on irregular forces and civilians. The second was to have the cease-fire lines treated as international borders for all intents and purposes, pending the conclusion of final peace agreements. This meant full sovereignty over Israeli territory, the only limitation being on the introduction of armed forces into the demilitarized zones. The third right was to settle Jews on all the land within its domain and to develop the economy without taking into account the rights of the previous owners who had become refugees.

The Arabs, on the other hand, claimed three rights under the armistice agreements. First, they held that the agreements did not terminate the state of war with Israel and that they were therefore not precluded by international law from denying Israel freedom of navigation, imposing an economic boycott on it, and waging a propaganda campaign against it. Second, they insisted that the armistice lines were only cease-fire lines and not international borders and that Israel was therefore subject to restrictions on its rights to develop the demilitarized zones and to exploit their water resources. Third, they argued that the armistice agreements did not cancel the rights of the displaced Palestinians to return to their lands and that Israel’s use of that land was therefore not legitimate. Moreover, they claimed, the Palestinians were entitled to struggle against the occupation of their land, and the Arab states were under no obligation to curb this struggle.”


The differences between the 2 sides are amazing and most interesting.

So these are the 1967 borders that they keep talking about and that Obama in his now infamous bushwhacking speech referred to!

You would think therefore that when the fighting was over, the Arabs defeated as they were, that the Arabs would be happy to treat this deal as their new borders of a state.

But the above analysis shows that it was THEY who did not treat these Armistice Lines as borders, but really as lines, that these lines were certainly temporary, and that the “agreement” was just a stage in their war.

The Jews though were full of hope that these were borders and that the fighting was really over.

To the Arabs they meant nothing, absolutely nothing. Just a stopover point from where they could gather to launch a fresh attack on the Jews and their fragile state.

And that is precisely what ensued in the following years, from 49 to 67, a period of some 18 years. How gullible were those Jews back in 1949 who signed these Armistice Lines into being.

How ironic it is that it is the Arabs today who are calling them “borders”!

More lies within lies!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s