desiderata:
- tripartite declaration and reaffirmation
- 1954 Israeli declaration Khouri
- denunciations and reaffirmations
- maps
- permanent character SC res
- Bunche authoritative interp
- negotiations and interactions with other negotiations
- reception through the years
- colors, who drew
- MACs
- references
- continuing relevance: bush statements to sharon and abu mazen , infra and jwn
In April 2004, American President George W. Bush said the barrier "should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities." [1]. He added that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements. [2] "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." [3] Most of the settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line have been enclosed by the barrier.
- Heptor, I tried to pay attention to your concerns by the slight change in the second usage, where it was a little more appropriate also, to say 1967 lines. My point with "beneficial confusion" was that for almost all purposes there is no practical difference between the 49 lines and the pre-67 lines referred to in SC 242, but there are slight differences - the most important by far now is the border on the Sea of Galilee with Syria, so your new and more wordy suggestion is confusing in a way I think is bad - misleading that the lines were exactly the same. Clarity is not more important than accuracy. Having a link to the armistice article is the sensible way, because that is where the similarity and difference between the two should be explained, not in a general article, which should use either pre-67 lines or armistice lines, and not borders, which many feel could mislead. In any case, following Bush's statements last year, the "49 armistice lines" instead of pre67 lines has had a sudden surge of popularity in the media and diplomacy.
"Both" is poor English, and arguably, indeed probably one of your statements is false, Jordan at least not entering to destroy the Jewish state, but rather to grab about half of the proposed Palestinian state and the holy places in Jerusalem, as it did. (Lebanon's casualty-free invasion is often described as "pretending to fight."), Additionally, practically all the fighting took place in the proposed Arab state area, except for one later Egyptian movement. The war is usually said to start when they entered mandatory Palestine, not then. The sourced "illegal aggression" is much better, I think than a disputable fought to destroy the nascent (somewhat emotive, POV word) Jewish state. So I am reverting to my version, except for your "maintained" which is better, and as a show of good faith, I am replacing 1949 armistice lines with pre-1967 lines, as in the later part. Here it is not so good, as there was differing treatment of minorities in the DMZ's defined by the armistice lines, but I am still changing it.