Harper's Stance on Obama's Palestinian Plan

[RNG]

So Harper is disagreeing with Obama on the pre-1967 war boundaries. Is this showing an independent foreign policy in spite of US pressure, or is it his fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

One source - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/20/obama-netanyahu-friday.html

Edited May 22, 2011 by RNG

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope....any such posturing is political theatre. Canada does not have direct interest or influence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[scribblet]

Nothing to with religious beliefs, I'm not religious but I agree with Canada's position.

[Guest Derek L]

So Harper is disagreeing with Obama on the pre-1967 war boundaries. Is this showing an independent foreign policy in spite of US pressure, or is it his fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

One source - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/20/obama-netanyahu-friday.html

I think from a political point of view, it’s a smart decision, in that it shows that Harper is not an American “lap-dog” (as some claim) and it will further cement his growing support amongst the Canadian Jewish community.

From a pragmatic point of view, it’s realistic, since Israel won’t surrender the West Bank, East Jerusalem etc. Also, as some said, our support for Israel cost us the UN seat, so it shows consistency, which I can respect.

As for Christian morality, without treading into an Israel vs Palestinian quagmire of a debate, I personally support his decision, and if he’s doing what he thinks is morally right, Christian or not, I too respect that. Sometimes going against the grain (Obama, EU, and Russia etc) and doing what you think to be right, is the more difficult decision, and in doing so, shows character in my view.

[Remiel]

From a pragmatic point of view, it’s realistic, since Israel won’t surrender the West Bank, East Jerusalem etc. Also, as some said, our support for Israel cost us the UN seat, so it shows consistency, which I can respect.

What exactly do you mean by the bolded part? If Israel is not willing to part with at least part of the West Bank, there is literally nothing to negotiate.

In any case, this is all that article actually said:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government also suggested on Friday it was not backing the U.S. call for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 demarcation lines. Instead, government officials said that Ottawa supports a "negotiated solution involving both Israel and the Palestinian authority."

This is either an endorsement of the status quo, or just a non-statement. I mean, of course most people would prefer a negotiated solution, but the fact is that we have been waiting for a negotiated solution for too long. The recent dance around what was needed to start negotiation was the straw that broke the camels back, I think, and the reason the Palestinians decided they needed to come up with a new plan.

[Guest Derek L]

What exactly do you mean by the bolded part? If Israel is not willing to part with at least part of the West Bank, there is literally nothing to negotiate.

Netanyahu has already stated that they won't withdrawl or stop building settlements.....

This is either an endorsement of the status quo, or just a non-statement. I mean, of course most people would prefer a negotiated solution, but the fact is that we have been waiting for a negotiated solution for too long. The recent dance around what was needed to start negotiation was the straw that broke the camels back, I think, and the reason the Palestinians decided they needed to come up with a new plan.

I guess you could called it an endorsement of the status quo, since we’re not dictating to the Israelis to return to 1967 lines, in effect, opposing Obama’s “new approach”.

[scouterjim]

So Harper is disagreeing with Obama on the pre-1967 war boundaries. Is this showing an independent foreign policy in spite of US pressure, or is it his fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

One source - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/20/obama-netanyahu-friday.html

I wasn't aware that the Canadian Prime Minister was required to agree with the American president at all times.

[Guest Derek L]

I wasn't aware that the Canadian Prime Minister was required to agree with the American president at all times.

Of course not, but many claim(ed) that Harper in unable to detach himself from the United States.

[Guest Derek L]

I wasn't aware that the Canadian Prime Minister was required to agree with the American president at all times.

Of course not, but many claim(ed) that Harper in unable to detach himself from the United States.

[Topaz]

In Dec. 2008 the American Jewsish organizations gave Harper the International Leader Award for supporting Israel. I think he Harper had to chose bewteen the president of the US or Israel would win.

[Remiel]

Netanyahu has already stated that they won't withdrawl or stop building settlements.....

Which is why it is not surprising when people claim that Bibi does not actually want peace.

I guess you could called it an endorsement of the status quo, since we’re not dictating to the Israelis to return to 1967 lines, in effect, opposing Obama’s “new approach”.

See, this is exactly where the hypocrisy comes on the part of Bibi. When the Palestinians wanted to negotiate before, they also wanted to negotiate based on the 1967 borders. Israel claimed this counted as a pre-condition of negotiation, and thus refused to negotiate. However, here we have Bibi claiming that 1967 is not up for discussion, which seems to be exactly the sort of position he was excorciating the Palestinians for. The logical conclusion being that either Bibi is a hypocrite, an idiot, or opposesd to peace, or some combination of the three. Why exactly should anyone side completely with such a person?

[Sandy MacNab]

I wasn't aware that the Canadian Prime Minister was required to agree with the American president at all times.

The "Canadian" politically correct are grovelling at the feet of Obama so, given their philosophy of 'do as we say, not what makes any sense whatsoever', Harper must agree with Obama at all times.

[Keepitsimple]

The critical part of Israeli/Palesine negotiations is the recognition of Israel's right to exist and their right to peace and security. Until that is expressed - with no reservations - by all elements in the conflict.....then all cards should be held close to the vest. You do NOT start to negotiate before. Period.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Of course not, but many claim(ed) that Harper in unable to detach himself from the United States.

Throw a Republican in power... see how quickly he kneels, begs and rolls over

[Guest Derek L]

The critical part of Israeli/Palesine negotiations is the recognition of Israel's right to exist and their right to peace and security. Until that is expressed - with no reservations - by all elements in the conflict.....then all cards should be held close to the vest. You do NOT start to negotiate before. Period.

My thoughts exactly. A interesting “what if”, could be seen after (if) the Egyptians have free elections, followed by the internal Syrian conflict playing out, how events in Iran play out, the results of the vote on Palestinian statehood at the UN this fall, and if the Obama administration will further alienate Israel added to if he wins reelection in 2012.

Could we see 1973 redux? Perhaps an isolated Israel, surrounded by hostile neighbors and faced with internal problems with Hamas and Hezbollah, being forced to release the nuclear genie from its bottle.

Perhaps an isolated and unrestrained (from the United States) Israel, will see the only permanent ending to this decades long conflict with it’s neighbors as a total, resounding, victory which would see it’s neighbors subtracted from the equation.

[betsy]

So Harper is disagreeing with Obama on the pre-1967 war boundaries. Is this showing an independent foreign policy in spite of US pressure, or is it his fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

One source - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/20/obama-netanyahu-friday.html

I agree with PM Harper. Israel was provoked to war and thus, it has the right to those borders. And yes it does shows independent policy despite US pressures.

The question is why would Obama put such pressure on Israel? Is this for political posturing (riding high after the Bin Laden success)...or is there truth to the rumour that Obama is secretly a Muslim? And anti-Israel?

Edited May 23, 2011 by betsy

[Tilter]

The critical part of Israeli/Palesine negotiations is the recognition of Israel's right to exist and their right to peace and security. Until that is expressed - with no reservations - by all elements in the conflict.....then all cards should be held close to the vest. You do NOT start to negotiate before. Period.

The only way to negotiate with the Palestinians is with a gun. There is no truce they won't break, no line they respect and no end to the deceit that plays out with any of the Mid east countries.

[dre]

Bibi is a hypocrite, an idiot, or opposesd to peace

Its a pretty well known fact that hes opposed to peace. Its not too shocking.

[jbg]

I think he Harper had to chose bewteen the president of the US or Israel would win.

I would reword this sentence somehow. It makes no sense in either English or Canadian.

I detect that "he Harper" is a typo and you meant "Harper". Also, I think "chose" should be "choose" in either language.

I am not sure if you are saying that the POTUS, or Israel, would win if Harper had to choose between them. Please clarify.

[jbg]

Nothing to with religious beliefs, I'm not religious but I agree with Canada's position.

So do I. I am proud to once again have a neighbor who, as in 1914 and 1939, is ahead of my country in supporting the force of civilization against the lawlessness of the savages.

I think from a political point of view, its a smart decision, in that it shows that Harper is not an American lap-dog (as some claim) and it will further cement his growing support amongst the Canadian Jewish community.

An insignificantly small community, but go on.

From a pragmatic point of view, its realistic, since Israel wont surrender the West Bank, East Jerusalem etc. Also, as some said, our support for Israel cost us the UN seat, so it shows consistency, which I can respect.

There are portions of the West Bank that can and should be released to some form of self-government. Israel does noto need an Arab demographic bomb or the headaches of administering these difficult to govern areas.

As for Christian morality, without treading into an Israel vs Palestinian quagmire of a debate, I personally support his decision, and if hes doing what he thinks is morally right, Christian or not, I too respect that. Sometimes going against the grain (Obama, EU, and Russia etc) and doing what you think to be right, is the more difficult decision, and in doing so, shows character in my view.

I think it is quite easy for the "civilized world" to appease the forces of savagery. The thinking is that it's similar to feeding a ravenous but domesticated dog living in your house; if satiated it won't bite.

The problem with the Quartet's approach to peace is that it assumes that it is dealing with civilized people. It is hard to make peace with people steeped in medieval superstitions, whose life cycle is to reproduce, raise children to become "fighters" and die after a life which is, to quote Hobbes, "nasty, brutish and short". There is utterly no evidence that these people, as a group, have any interest in peace, productivity or work. They are interested in peace only to the extent that it advances the ball towards further territorial gains.

Harper, like Winston Churchill in 1938, is right to be the voice in the wilderness fighting for civilization.

Edited May 23, 2011 by jbg

[scouterjim]

I agree with PM Harper. Israel was provoked to war and thus, it has the right to those borders. And yes it does shows independent policy despite US pressures.

The question is why would Obama put such pressure on Israel? Is this for political posturing (riding high after the Bin Laden success)...or is there truth to the rumour that Obama is secretly a Muslim? And anti-Israel?

What's the problem, Betsy? Obama isn't a Bible pounding Christian? Not good enough for your liking?

[dre]

I agree with PM Harper. Israel was provoked to war and thus, it has the right to those borders. And yes it does shows independent policy despite US pressures.

The question is why would Obama put such pressure on Israel? Is this for political posturing (riding high after the Bin Laden success)...or is there truth to the rumour that Obama is secretly a Muslim? And anti-Israel?

I agree with PM Harper. Israel was provoked to war and thus, it has the right to those borders.

Both sides provoked each other into war. And no... it doesnt give them any right to that territory at all besides the kind or "right" that might makes.

[dre]

So do I. I am proud to once again have a neighbor who, as in 1914 and 1939, is ahead of my country in supporting the force of civilization against the lawlessness of the savages.

An insignificantly small community, but go on.

There are portions of the West Bank that can and should be released to some form of self-government. Israel does noto need an Arab demographic bomb or the headaches of administering these difficult to govern areas.

I think it is quite easy for the "civilized world" to appease the forces of savagery. The thinking is that it's similar to feeding a ravenous but domesticated dog living in your house; if satiated it won't bite.

The problem with the Quartet's approach to peace is that it assumes that it is dealing with civilized people. It is hard to make peace with people steeped in medieval superstitions, whose life cycle is to reproduce, raise children to become "fighters" and die after a life which is, to quote Hobbes, "nasty, brutish and short". There is utterly no evidence that these people, as a group, have any interest in peace, productivity or work. They are interested in peace only to the extent that it advances the ball towards further territorial gains.

Harper, like Winston Churchill in 1938, is right to be the voice in the wilderness fighting for civilization.

Yup that pretty much sums up both sides in CONFLICT: DIRTFARM.

[Guest Derek L]

An insignificantly small community, but go on.

Maybe so, but in my view, one that deserves the right, just as any other community, to live in peace within their adopted country.

There are portions of the West Bank that can and should be released to some form of self-government. Israel does noto need an Arab demographic bomb or the headaches of administering these difficult to govern areas.

Fair enough, even though there has never been (in modern times) a Palestinian state, but in my view, one should take a “Quebec” approach to any statehood. If Israel is divisible, so are the occupied lands.

I think it is quite easy for the "civilized world" to appease the forces of savagery. The thinking is that it's similar to feeding a ravenous but domesticated dog living in your house; if satiated it won't bite.

The problem with the Quartet's approach to peace is that it assumes that it is dealing with civilized people. It is hard to make peace with people steeped in medieval superstitions, whose life cycle is to reproduce, raise children to become "fighters" and die after a life which is, to quote Hobbes, "nasty, brutish and short". There is utterly no evidence that these people, as a group, have any interest in peace, productivity or work. They are interested in peace only to the extent that it advances the ball towards further territorial gains.

Harper, like Winston Churchill in 1938, is right to be the voice in the wilderness fighting for civilization.

And your above point (which I put in bold) is why I feel apprehensive about Palestinian statehood. Would an independent Palestine be peaceful towards Israel?

Would a strategy of encirclement and isolation, with increased security fences, manned watchtowers, anti mortar/rocket radar and minefields ala the Korean DMZ be effective?

[dre]

Maybe so, but in my view, one that deserves the right, just as any other community, to live in peace within their adopted country.

Fair enough, even though there has never been (in modern times) a Palestinian state, but in my view, one should take a Quebec approach to any statehood. If Israel is divisible, so are the occupied lands.

And your above point (which I put in bold) is why I feel apprehensive about Palestinian statehood. Would an independent Palestine be peaceful towards Israel?

Would a strategy of encirclement and isolation, with increased security fences, manned watchtowers, anti mortar/rocket radar and minefields ala the Korean DMZ be effective?

Would a strategy of encirclement and isolation, with increased security fences, manned watchtowers, anti mortar/rocket radar and minefields ala the Korean DMZ be effective?

Thats really the only way that those two gangs of zealous retards will every treat each other with respect. Build two gigantic concrete walls along the border about a mile apart... 400 feet high and 50 foot thick. Then put 10 billion land mines in the middle of them.

The only chance for peace there is if someone puts a gun to both of their heads to keep it... and nobody is willing to do it.

Edited May 23, 2011 by dre