Calls for a return to the “1967 borders” often misrepresent historical realities and legal agreements. The term “1967 borders” is a misnomer; the lines referred to are the 1949 Armistice lines, established following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. These lines were not intended as permanent borders but as temporary ceasefire demarcations between Israel and its neighbouring Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
The 1949 Armistice Lines: Temporary Ceasefire Demarcations
The 1949 Armistice Agreements, brokered by the United Nations, concluded the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. These agreements delineated ceasefire lines to separate the warring parties and were explicitly stated not to constitute permanent borders. For instance, the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement specifies that “the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”.
These lines were drawn based on the positions held by each side at the time of the ceasefire and were never recognized as permanent national boundaries by any party involved. The term “Green Line” originates from the green ink used to mark these lines on maps during the armistice negotiations.
Jerusalem: No Palestinian Capital
The status of Jerusalem remains one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contrary to claims of East Jerusalem being the capital of a future Palestinian state, the Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, specifically address the governance of Jerusalem.
Article XVII of the Oslo II Agreement (Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 1995) explicitly states that “Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis” are issues to be negotiated in permanent status talks and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Furthermore, the PA is prohibited from conducting official governmental activities in Jerusalem. The PA’s Ministry for Jerusalem Affairs, for example, operated out of the Orient House in East Jerusalem, which was considered a violation of the Oslo Accords.
The Oslo Accords: A Framework for Negotiation, Not a Final Settlement
The Oslo Accords were intended as interim agreements, establishing a framework for negotiations toward a final status settlement. They did not resolve key issues such as borders, the status of Jerusalem, security arrangements, and Palestinian refugees. The Accords established the Palestinian Authority as a provisional body with limited self-governance powers in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but they did not create a sovereign Palestinian state.
The Accords also stipulated that the final status negotiations would address the core issues of the conflict, including the status of Jerusalem. As such, any claims of East Jerusalem being the capital of a Palestinian state are premature and not supported by the legal framework established in the Oslo Accords.
