Recognizing a Palestinian state on the “1967 lines” is not diplomacy — it is surrender to illusion. To reward decades of rejectionism with borders that endanger Israel — while a terror group still holds kidnapping victims — is a moral abomination.If You’re Reading From Phoenix Click On Read Original To Read Full Article
In the wake of October 7, many in the international community have rushed to insist that the “solution” is to give the Palestinians a state on the 1967 borders.
It sounds tidy, it feels familiar, and it flatters the world’s illusion that peace can be engineered by mapmakers.
But this prescription is not only naïve — it is an abomination. It ignores decades of rejection, the hard realities of Israeli security, and the moral lessons of history.
The Pattern of “No”
After Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, the Arab League gathered in Khartoum in August 1967 and issued the infamous “Three No’s”:
- No peace with Israel
- No recognition of Israel
- No negotiations with Israel
That declaration became the DNA of the Palestinian national movement. Even as Egypt (1979), Jordan (1994), and the Abraham Accords states broke away, Palestinian leaders clung to rejectionism.
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s raised hopes. Israel and the PLO signed mutual recognition. The Palestinian Authority was created, granted control over major population centers, and billions in foreign aid flowed in.
Yet instead of preparing their people for peace, Palestinian leaders entrenched a culture of incitement and violence.
At Camp David in 2000, President Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians 91–97% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, and parts of East Jerusalem as their capital. Prime Minister Ehud Barak said yes. Yasser Arafat said no.
Clinton later admitted his shock: ”Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything. … Arafat’s response was to start the intifada.”
Dennis Ross, the U.S. envoy who spent years mediating between the two sides, was even more direct:
“Arafat did not come to Camp David to reach an agreement. He came with the plan for the second Intifada already in place. He was not prepared to end the conflict, only to continue it by other means.”
This was not a failed chance at peace — it was proof that peace was never the goal.
In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went even further: a map that gave Palestinians near-total sovereignty, land swaps, shared Jerusalem, and international custodianship of holy sites. Mahmoud Abbas never even responded.
Over and over, the answer has been the same: rejection. Not “no, but.” Just no.
The Geography of Suicide
Borders are not abstractions. For a nation the size of New Jersey, they are the difference between life and death. The 1967 lines would leave Israel seven miles wide at its narrowest point. No modern military would accept such a vulnerability.
Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin warned in 1977 that the 1967 borders were “not defensible.” Abba Eban, one of Israel’s greatest diplomats, famously described them as “Auschwitz borders” — boundaries that would invite catastrophe.
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence assessment, has emphasized:“Without defensible borders, Israel cannot survive. Withdrawal to 1967 lines without security depth is an invitation to aggression.”
Even the drafters of UN Resolution 242 understood this. That resolution never required a return to the precise 1967 lines. Instead, it called for withdrawal from territories in exchange for peace and insisted on “secure and recognized boundaries.” The authors left room for adjustments precisely because the old lines were indefensible.
After October 7, No More Delusion
The massacre of October 7 was not about settlements or borders. Hamas did not ask it’s victims whether they lived in Gaza, Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv. They came to kill Jews, period.
To pretend that drawing new lines on a map will transform a culture that pays salaries to terrorists, teaches children that Israel must vanish or never existed, and glorifies the murder of civilians is to learn nothing. A Palestinian state under current conditions would not bring peace — it would guarantee more October 7ths, which Hamas has promised to do more of.
Ambassador Dore Gold put it clearly:
“The 1967 borders are not defensible. Any proposal that fails to account for Israel’s need for defensible borders undermines both Israel’s security and the possibility of lasting peace.”
What Israelis Don’t Want Matters
Contrary to the world’s beliefs, what Israelis want actually matters. After October 7, support for the two-state solution has collapsed inside Israel. A Pew Research Center survey (Feb–Mar 2025) found that only 21% of Israelis believe Israel and a Palestinian state can coexist peacefully. Among Jewish Israelis, that figure drops to 16%.
This is not a passing mood swing. It is the sober judgment of a people who have lived through massacres, rocket barrages, and hostage-taking, and who understand that peace cannot be built on fantasies. Yet while Israelis overwhelmingly reject the two-state model under current conditions, the world lectures Israel as if its own citizens have no say in their survival.
The Moral Test
To demand that Israel return to the 1967 borders after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust is not diplomacy. It is moral blindness. It tells Jews everywhere that their security, their survival, their very lives are negotiable or worse.
Rewarding rejection and terror with a state sends a devastating message: mass murder and kidnapping works. It punishes the one democracy in the Middle East for defending itself, while excusing those who openly preach its destruction.
The international community would never demand that France shrink to seven miles wide, or that Britain hand over territory to groups sworn to its annihilation. Why is it acceptable to demand this of the Jewish state?
The Only Real Path to Peace
There is only one path forward: peace built on truth. That means recognition of Israel’s right to exist, dismantling and demilitarization of terror groups, genuine education for coexistence not indoctrination to hate and kill Jews, and borders that can actually be defended.
Until those conditions exist, calls for a Palestinian state on 1967 borders are not peace proposals. They are appeasement. And appeasement in this region, as history has shown, only breeds more bloodshed.
We will not be sheep led to slaughter.
“Never Again” actually means “Never Again”… . Continue..Reading. .
𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗔𝗽𝗽 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗧𝗼 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗔𝘀 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗗𝗿𝗼𝗽!
