Many people, including Israelis and Diaspora Jews, have misconceptions about land beyond the 1949 Armistice Line. This demarcation, also known as the Green Line or the "1967 border," is not a permanent border between Israelis and Palestinians. It isn't sacred and it was never the border of a Palestinian state - it's just where the fighting stopped at the end of Israel's War of Independence. Many of the communities beyond the Green Line were settled by Jews in the decades prior to our War of Independence. Other communities were built after 1967 as suburbs for nearby cities, such as Alfe Menashe, where we live, which is just fifteen minutes from the city of Kfar Saba. Actually, all the land beyond the Green Line was settled by Jews as long as 3,000 years ago, long before the Arabs ventured into the Levant (eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea).

But the world isn't interested in the history of the Land of Israel. Nearly all nations in existence today have borders drawn by the victors of a conflict between two adjacent nations. This was amply demonstrated in 1945, when victors America, China, Russia, Britain and France drew boundaries all over the world and especially in the Middle East. Just 22 years later, in 1967, the rules were changed when Jews were the victors. In Israel's case, even winning a defensive war against great odds doesn't justify, to most people, our retaining territory beyond the Green Line.

According to the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, Israel is not supposed to build new settlements or to increase the number of housing units in existing settlements in the socalled "occupied territories," even for natural growth. We know that the State Department has long been one of Israel's adversaries. In fact, when the State of Israel was in its infancy, then-Secretary of State George Marshall, of Marshall Plan fame, advised President Harry Truman to renege on the U.S. commitment to back Israel's independence. So, we are experienced with State Department actions thwarting our efforts to be a viable country in this region.

But in April, 2004, President George Bush made a realistic prediction of the outcome of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, known to some as "67-plus." He wrote to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC (U.N. Security Council) Resolutions 242 and 338. 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, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities." The question is, will President Bush and his eventual successor, Obama or McCain, stick to this approach?

David Horowitz, chief editor of the Jerusalem Post, interviewed Barack Obama during his brief visit to Israel in late July. Obama said that he is against "aggressive settlements." If he's referring to rogue settlements built without the permission of the Israeli government, I agree with him. But I'm not sure how he defines "aggressive settlements." Obama said that Israel's security concerns have to be taken into account in any negotiations, but he agreed with unnamed "parties in previous discussions" who said that settlement construction "doesn't necessarily contribute to enhanced security." It's hard to agree or disagree with that statement, since the word "necessarily" deprives it of any definitive meaning.

Referring to President Bush's 2004 letter to PM Sharon, Obama said that "67- plus" could justify large settlements beyond the Green Line being part of Israel as a "buffer" for security purposes. Obama qualified that by wondering "whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party." Referring to the Palestinians, Obama pondered if they will continue to "fight for every inch of that '67 border (sic)" or "take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries." Obama said that his sense is that both parties need to move beyond formulas and to take a practical approach that looks at the larger picture, to find the best way to achieve mutual security and peace.

This sounds fine at first glance. But looking beneath the surface, I'm not happy with Obama's idea of defining West Bank Israeli communities incorporated into Israel as "buffers." A buffer is something placed between two areas to protect against hostilities. A community of Jews can't be a buffer between Arabs and Israelis. The only possible buffer between Jews and Palestinians is a heavily protected security barrier, which our existing security barrier is doing pretty successfully. It's not the point whether Jews are living on one side of the Green Line or other that antagonizes the Palestinians, it's the basic fact that Jews are living on "Arab land."

I totally agree with Obama on the need for both sides to take a practical approach that considers the larger picture. But it's not just Israelis and Palestinians who need to do this. The next American president needs to proclaim the impossibility of a Palestinian right of return to Israel. Their "return" must be to a Palestinian state, some other Arab state, or any other country that will accept them. For good measure, the next president should expedite the Congressional Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and move the American Embassy there. (Since this act was passed, presidents Clinton and Bush both utilized the built-in escape clause twice yearly to avoid moving the embassy.) If America, by far Israel's strongest ally, won't take the bull by the horns to strongly support Israel's positions and to stop the appeasement of Arab regimes, there's no prospect for peace on the horizon, let alone within a few years. Peace will be put off for at least a generation or two, until after the Arabs have relinquished their dream to take over Israel through the Palestinian "Right of Return."

From my point of view, Israelis have given up intransigent positions regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state. Most Israelis (but not me) accept the idea of "Palestine" and some even welcome it. But the majority of us won't agree to expel 400,000-plus Jews from locations that happen to be beyond the Green Line, including areas of Jerusalem. (More than 200,000 Jews live in Jerusalem neighborhoods established after 1967 beyond the Green Line.) The State of Israel is proof that Arabs and Jews can coexist reasonably well. After all, 20 percent of our population is Muslim. In contrast, the Palestinians and other (non- Israeli) Arabs consistently show that they are incapable of living in close proximity to Jews.

America needs a strong president to show the West that peace isn't possible if it requires Israel to commit suicide by accepting "peace" at any price. The Green Line is no border - i t 's just a temporary cease-fire line. The controlling U.N. Resolution 242 stipulates "secure and recognized boundaries" between the State of Israel and its antagonists. Established Jewish communities beyond the Green Line, but reasonably close to it, must be part of Israel. That's the price the Arabs must pay for failing in 1948 to accept U.N. efforts to draw boundaries for two states and for making war (and losing) numerous times against Israel - if they really want to end hostilities with Israel.

Stephen Kramer resided and worked in the Atlantic City area until 1991, when he moved to Israel with his wife, Michal Langweiler, and two sons. His book "Meandering Through Israel" can be purchased by calling the Jewish Times at 407-0909. He can be reached at Sjk1@jhu.edu.