You probably already know that Canada was the first country to formally reject President Obama's call for Israel to retreat back to indefensible borders last Thursday.
Today, the Canadians once again had Israel's back at the G8 summit in Europe.
President Obama lobbied the G8 nations intensely to endorse his notion that Israel should be forced back to the pre-1967 lines and to put the endorsement in the final communiqué of the summit.
He failed miserably, primarily because Canada's courageous PM Stephen Harper and the Canadian delegation adamantly refused to have any mention of the pre 1967 lines in the G-8 statement even though some other leaders wanted to include it.
Instead, the communiqué included an explicit endorsement of negotiations between the two parties to settle all outstanding issues, a defeat for the 'Palestinian' attempt sideswipe them and go directly to the UN.And not incidentally, a diplomatic defeat for President Obama.
Obviously President Obama has now backpedaled on any positive aspects of his AIPAC speech and is back to his original rhetoric.Luckily, that kind of cowardice usually falters when confronted by real courage.
Three cheers for the Canadians and Stephen Harper!
5 comments:
As an American who strongly supports Israel and sings the praises of PM Netanyahu...and now also of PM Stephen Harper, thank you for your superb essay! And thank you to the Canadian delegation to the G8 Summit for your courageous stand with Israel.
Three cheers for the Canadians and Stephen Harper!
I agree with you here.
God is very pleased with PM for standing by HIS HOLY LAND AND JERUSALEM.
Unfortunately, the msm has done a lot of harm to canadians by manipulating them into thinking the worse of the PM.Stephen Harper.
lol. Wow. They said the exact opposite, specifically that they have "strong support" for the plan outlined by the President. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=222500
Any negotiation is going to involve land swaps and is going to be based on the 1967 lines. That's been the unspoken basis for years. Quit playing games and get it done. 99% of the world gets it except for nutty North American Right Wingers.
Hello Sandy,
And welcome to Joshuapundit.
My first question is: did you actually read the article you linked to , or did you just unfortunately see what you wanted to see?
They 'expressed support' for renewed negotiations and generic 'support' for Obama's peace plan ( whatever that means,since he's all over the map depending on whether he's talking to the US State Department or AIPAC)but there's no word about the pre-1967 lines at all, and nothing at all in the final communique'...which means this 'statement' was just so much blather.
You write:
"Any negotiation is going to involve land swaps and is going to be based on the 1967 lines. That's been the unspoken basis for years."
I can't imagine what your basis for that is.
UNSC Resolution 242 says something entirely different, and
so did ex-President Bush's guarantees to ex-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, which assured Israel that it could keep the major blocs of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria in exchange for pulling out of Gaza and signing on to the Roadmap.president Bush also explicitly stated that the 'Palestinian' refugee problem would be solved outside of Israel's borders.
So after giving up something concrete like territory, you expect the Israelis to pay again for the same merchandise,but at a higher price since Obama is saying nothing about the Palestinian's so-called 'right of return'? Not only that,but you want Israel to negotiate with an entity that contains the genocidal Hamas.Hardly fair or just, and no country would put up with that.
I fear, like our president you have an Israel problem, which is interesting since there's absolutely no benefit to America or the West coming from a Hamas ruled 'Palestinian' state.
Fortunately, men of principle and courage like Stephen Harper exist, and as we just saw form the recent elections, the vast majority of Canadians apparently respect and agree with that.
Regards,
Rob Miller
May god richly bless Stephen Harper, Canada, and the Canadian people for this courageous stand. May god hlep America and may we get leaders like Mr. Harper.
"...there's absolutely no benefit to America or the West frmo a Hamas ruled 'Palestinian' state." This statement nails it, exceptf for one part. Just who is "the West>?" If we mean Western Europe, from their perspective America is a "strategic competitor." As such, if calamity should befall our country, they would view this as a good thing and would be happy about it. Perhaps not publically but behind the scenes they would be estatic.
Now with that said the best way to solve the problem is to cut off all aid to the Palestinians or at least make it conditional much like the aid Israel receives from the US. As long as the Palestinians are receiving large amounts of unconditional aid, there position relative to Israel is vastly stronger. As such, there is little incentive to negotiate in good faith. If this aid were to either be cut off or was given based upon the same kind of highly stringent conditions that aid to Israel is based on,the Palestinian position relative to Israel would be much more equal. When this happens, the Palestinians just might find it much more advantageous to actually negotiate in good faith.
Post a Comment