TheGreen Line, or1949 Armistice border,[1] is thedemarcation line set out in the1949 Armistice Agreements between the armies ofIsrael and those of its neighbors (Egypt,Jordan,Lebanon, andSyria) after the1948 Arab–Israeli War. It served as thede facto borders of the State of Israel from 1949 until theSix-Day War in 1967, and continues to represent Israel's internationally recognized borders with the twoPalestinian territories: theWest Bank and theGaza Strip.[2][3]
The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence)[4] that they were not creating permanent borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."[5] Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the Israel–Lebanon border.
The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including former United States presidentBarack Obama,[6] Palestinian presidentMahmoud Abbas,[7] theUnited Nations (UN) in informal texts,[8] and in the text ofUN General Assembly resolutions.[9] The name comes from the green ink used to draw the line on the map during armistice talks.[10] After the Six-Day War, the territories captured by Israel beyond the Green Line came to be designated asEast Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and theGolan Heights. These territories are often referred to asIsraeli-occupied territories. TheSinai Peninsula, which was also captured at that time, has since been returned to Egypt as part of the1979 peace treaty.
The Green Line refers to thedemarcation lines, rather than permanent borders, betweenIsraeli forces and those of its neighbors.[4] All movement across the demarcation lines was banned and monitored by theUnited Nations Truce Supervision Organization. Most commonly, the term was applied to the boundary betweenJordan-controlledJerusalem and theWest Bank and Israel. The drawing of the Green Line superseded entirely the partition lines proposed and voted on by theUnited Nations in the Partition Plan of 1947 and which Israel had accepted in theIsraeli Declaration of Independence. The Palestinian and Arab leaders had repeatedly rejected any permanent partition ofMandatory Palestine.
In 1967, after Israel seized all the territories, other than theEmirate of Transjordan, of the former Mandatory Palestine, as well as other territories, the demarcation lines became militarily irrelevant, and the status of the Green Line became uncertain.
Although Israel has always formally argued that the Green Line has no legal significance, the Green Line continued to have political, legal and administrative significance. Israel regarded the territories beyond the Green Line, unlike those within the Green Line, asoccupied territories, and they were not incorporated into Israeli political and civilian administrative systems. The territories beyond the Green Line were administered by theIsraeli military or later also by thePalestinian Authority.[11][12] Citizenship by residence, for example, was determined with reference to the Green Line, as well as a person's refugee status.
The extension of the municipal boundary of Jerusalem in 1980 was an exception to this position. Although Jerusalem was a part of territory beyond the Green Line that wasruled by Jordan until 1967, Israel declared Jerusalem "complete and united" as the capital of Israel according to the 1980BasicJerusalem Law.[13][14] This claim has not been recognised by any country or by theUnited Nations (UN)Security Council.[13][14] A notional Green Line continues to divide Jerusalem at the boundary ofEast Jerusalem.
The Golan Heights are another exception, having been informally incorporated by Israel with the 1981Golan Heights Law. The UN Security Council declared this to be null and without any international legal effect.[15]
The sections of the Green Line that delineate the boundaries between Israel, the West Bank andGaza run through heavily populated regions. The Line corresponds to the military front of the 1948 War, and while the considerations dictating its placement were primarily military, it soon became clear that in many places it divided towns and villages, and separated farmers from their fields. Consequently, the Green Line underwent various slight adjustments, and special arrangements were made for limited movement in certain areas.[16]
Jerusalem was divided in half, intoEast andWest Jerusalem. The village ofBarta'a, partially due to errors on the map, was left with one third of its area on the Israeli side and two thirds outside of it.[16]
According toAvi Shlaim, in March 1949 as the Iraqi forces withdrew and handed over their positions to the Jordanian legion, Israel carried out OperationShin-Tav-Shin which allowed Israel to renegotiate the ceasefire line in theWadi Ara area of the northern West Bank in a secret agreement that was incorporated into the General Armistice Agreement. The Green Line was redrawn in blue ink on the southern map to give the impression that a movement in the green line had been made.[17]
During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of what subsequently became the Line, including theJewish Quarter of theOld City, were taken prisoner by the Jordanians. All but a few of theGush Etziondefenders were massacred. The prisoners were returned to Israel after the war.[11] On July 8, 1948, the Jewish inhabitants ofKfar Darom andNaharayim were evacuated by Israel due to military pressure by Egypt and Jordan. Israel also withdrew from villages in the Lebanese UpperGalilee, whereas Syria withdrew fromMishmar HaYarden.
Since Israel's victory in theSix-Day War, Israel has established settlements south and east of the Line. These have been strongly criticised by other nations.
Many Israelis believe that the settlements are important to Israel's security and also support the settlements ideologically. In contrast, other Israelis believe the settlements are an economic burden and a barrier to peace.[18]
From August to September 2005, Israel implemented aunilateral disengagement plan in which the entire Jewish population of theGaza Strip was evacuated. In 2006,Ehud Olmert proposed aconvergence plan that called for Israel to disengage, unilaterally, if necessary, from much of the West Bank (east of the line).
The majority ofPalestinian Arabs on the Israeli side of the Linefled or were expelled during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (around 720,000). Those who remained became Israeli citizens and now comprise approximately 20 per cent of Israel's total citizenry. TheUmm al-Fahm–Baqa al-Gharbiyye–Tira area, known as the "Triangle," was originally designated to fall underJordanian jurisdiction, but Israel insisted on having it within its side of the Green Line side due to military and strategic reasons. To achieve this, a territorial swap was negotiated, ceding to Jordan the Israeli territory in the southern hills ofHebron in exchange for the Triangle villages inWadi Ara.[11]
In the Six-Day War, Israel occupiedterritories beyond the Green Line that were inhabited by over a million Palestinian Arabs, including refugees from the 1947–1949 war.[19] The Green Line remained the administrative border between these territories (with the exception of Jerusalem) and the areas on the Israeli side of the Green Line.
In 1967, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and gave its Arab inhabitantspermanent residency status. They were also entitled to apply for Israeli citizenship. Domestically, Israel attempted to emphasize the status of East Jerusalem as part of Israel by its 1980 Jerusalem Law.United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 deemed the law null and void, and this status has not been recognised by any other nation.[20]
In 1981, theKnesset enacted theGolan Heights Law, ostensibly as a reaction to Syrian provocations. This extended the Israelirule of law to the Golan Heights.[21] (It was also thought to have been motivated by the recent US AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia.[22]) This act was widely considered an informal annexation. It was criticized by the United States as a violation of the Camp David Accords[21] and condemned by the UN Security Council inResolution 497.[23]
In October and November 1967, the Israeli security cabinet passed resolutions to remove the Green Line from official maps.[24] The decision was classified "top secret" and a media blackout was imposed.[24] Printing of the new maps was delayed until a UN General Assembly meeting finished.[24] As a consequence of the decision, theSurvey of Israel's official maps began to omit the Green Line and the armistice line with Egypt, while the armistice lines with Jordan and Lebanon were relabeled as ceasefire lines.[24][25][26]
In 2022, theTel Aviv-Yafo Municipality sent maps to its schools that indicated the Green Line contrary to usual practice.[27] The mayor explained the decision as "It's important to us that students know Israel's sovereign borders and the complex reality in areas where Jewish citizens of Israel and Arabs under the Palestinian Authority's control live side by side".[27] However, theEducation Ministry told the municipality that the maps must not be used "even as a poster on the wall".[27]
In a December 1969 speech, US Secretary of StateWilliam P. Rogers said that "any changes in the pre-existing [1949 armistice] lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not supportexpansionism."[28]Harvard law professorStephen M. Schwebel responded that "...modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are...'insubstantial alterations required for mutual security' or more substantial alterations—such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem." In a footnote, he wrote: "It should be added that the armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them."[28]
The question of whether, or to what extent, Israel should withdraw its population and forces to its side of the Green Line remains a crucial issue in some discussions surrounding theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict. There is a near-unanimous international consensus that Israel should withdraw to its side of the line. This has been expressed in the yearlyUN General Assembly vote on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.[29] Although disputed by Israel,United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (UNSC 242)[30] has declared the interpretation of international law regardingPalestinian Territory.
The Palestinians were not party to the drawing of the Green Line and they rejected UNSC 242, saying that it did not call for an independent Palestinian state, and referred to them as refugees. Since 1976, most elements in thePLO have accepted the pre-June 1967 line as a basis for the establishment of a Palestinian state.[31]
In the early 1980s, American intellectualNoam Chomsky argued that Israeli claims that the Palestinian leadership rejected the international consensus calling for a Palestinian state, with borders along the Green Line, were not consistent with the documented record.[32] In 2008,Al Jazeera andHaaretz both reported that elements in the Palestinian leadership, includingHamas, have called for a two-state settlement based on the pre-June 1967 borders (the Green Line).[33][34]
While initially seeking a state in all of formerMandatory Palestine, Hamas began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in2005,2006 and2007.[35][36][37] In 2017, Hamas released anew charter[38] that supported a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel.[39][40][41] Hamas's repeated offers of atruce (for a period of 10–100 years[42]) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with atwo-state solution,[43][44] while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in formerMandatory Palestine.[45]
The majority of the Israeli public opposes reverting to pre-1967 borders. A 2011 study found that, because of security concerns, 77 per cent of Israelis oppose returning to pre-1967 lines, even if it would lead to peace between Israel and neighboring Arab states.[46]
TheIsraeli West Bank barrier constructed in the early 21st century is, in parts, kilometres away from the Green Line and most lies within Palestinian territory.[47]
According toHebrew University geographer Ilan Salomon, the Green Line can be discerned from space via satellite; it is marked by pine forests planted by theJewish National Fund to demarcate Israeli territory. Salomon and Larissa Fleishman conducted a 2006 study regarding Israeli students' knowledge of the location of the Green Line, and they found that not much more than one third could identify its placement. They learned that "students who identify with left-leaning parties are more familiar with the location of theWest Bank and theGaza Strip, can sketch them more accurately and are also more aware of the nature of borders."[48]
Even Hamas in 2017 said it was ready to accept a Palestinian state with 1967 borders if it is clear this is the consensus of the Palestinians.
Asher Susser, director of the Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv University, conveyed to me in an interview that "Hamas' 'hudna' is not significantly different from Sharon's 'long-term interim agreement." Similarly, Daniel Levy, a senior Israeli official for the Geneva Initiative (GI), informed me that certain Hamas officials find the GI acceptable, but due to the concerns about their Islamically oriented constituency and their own Islamic identity, they would "have to express the final result in terms of a "hudna," or "indefinite" ceasefire," rather than a formal peace agreement."
Hamas too would signal a willingness to accept a long-term "hudna" (cessation of hostilities, truce) along the armistice lines of 1948 (an effective acceptance of the two-state formula).
