By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama calls for Israel to restore 1967 boundaries

HappySqurriel on 28 May 2011
MrBubbles said:
Mr Khan said:
MrBubbles said:

DEAUVILLE, France (Reuters) – Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said Friday.

Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel's pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders' final communique, even though most of the other leaders wanted such a reference.

The communique called for the immediate resumption of peace talks but did not mention 1967, the year Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt during the Six-Day War.

U.S. President Barack Obama last week laid out a vision for peace in the Middle East, saying pre-1967 borders should be a basis for talks to achieve a negotiated settlement. Israel quickly dismissed the idea as unworkable.

"The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week," one European diplomat said.

Harper, pressed repeatedly by reporters, declined to confirm he had objected to the language on borders but said he would oppose what he called unbalanced statements on finding peace in the Middle East.

"We are very much at ease with President Obama's speech but you cannot cherry pick elements of that speech," he said.

"If you're going to get into other elements then obviously I would have liked to see a reference to elements that were also in ... (the) speech, such as for instance the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state, the fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized."

The G8 communique said: "Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict."

It added: "The framework for these negotiations is well known ... We express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama."

In the wake of the vote, Harper said: "When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand."

Not surprising that the tory so adamantly stands against it, but the 67 borders are the only thing anyone can hope for, so unless Canada wants to come out in overt support of Apartheid 2.0, Harper should back the hell off

hi thanks for not reading.  if had actually read the entire article you would have noticed he did not oppose the position.   the objection was to the need to solely repeat it in the g8 statement...the G8 statement now supports what was outlined by obama and does not just repeat specific parts of what he said.

 

The reason for this is obvious, as a third party mediator you should not be making statements about what the outcomes of a negotiation should be prior to the negotiation happening; especially if you’re giving one side far more than they asked for while demanding the other side to sacrifice far more than they would ever be willing to.

I have been reading and watching the opinions of experts on this for the last couple of weeks, and it has become clear that salvaging these peace talks will become nearly impossible now due to Obama’s foolish statement.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 28 May 2011
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

The thing is some kind of military force is essentially required for a sovereign state. Israels conditions basically would give Palestine faux-sovereignity but leave Israel still holding de facto control. It'd basically be the status quo with a different veneer.


Tell that to Lichtenstein, Costa Rica, Microneisa, Grenada, Iceland...


Well Costa Rica, Grenada and Iceland all have paramilitary forces of some kind, even without a proper military. Lichtenstien as a microstate is a bit different.

Micronesia is a good example though, with their security carried out by the USA. However there is a different in having your security carried out by a ally in a mutually beneficial arrangement and having your security carried out by a historic enemy by their demands. The second one is essentially occupation.

And Palestine has a paramilitary force as it is right now.  Being demilitarized doesn't mean you can't have a particularly strong police force.  It just suggests you probably shouldn't have big missles, when your basic MO has been to fire small ones at will into your neighbors territory.



Kasz216 on 28 May 2011
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

The strength gap with Israel has only grown since the Six Days war. It would be hard for Syria to do anything meaningful right now, and the Palestinians would start basically from zero. A Palestinian state would have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist from the getgo, which would sunder them from the Iranian alignment immediately. It would take them decades to build up to that level, and in the hangtime they would be afraid enough of disastrous defeat to hold off.

Independence should come with a mutual nonagression pact, but an independent Palestine has to have all the rights of a sovereign state or else its not proper independence, similar to if they got "independence" while they were still crisscrossed with Israeli-controlled "restricted zones."

That... sounds like a bunch of idealized nonsense.  The Palestine state akcnolwedges Israels right to exist... ok.  How does that actually ever stop them from attacking Israel?

Why would that sunder them from Iranian alignmnet?  Like, seriously, why?  Because they were forced to say something to get their own country?  You don't think Iran understands having to lie to the international community?

What i'm really getting at here is that it would entail a political shift to the point where these possibilities would cease to exist. The moderate political alliance (with more inclination towards the Hamas way of thinking than currently exists, but not so much as to be truly damaging) would as a matter of course be disinclined towards violent options or towards the Iran-Hezbollah bloc. I'm foreseeing a more toothless alignment similar to Jordan, or at most Egypt who might pay lip-service to a more anti-Israeli action, but won't do anything

I'm not being naive, i'm saying that the conditions necessary to enact the two-state solution will also lend themselves towards a lasting peace, according to the political movements and attitudes necessary for that to come about.

What exactly would cause this political shift?  Nothing I could see.

Let alone the fact that Palestine has yet to recognize Israel... which one would have to think would need to be a shift in the OTHER direction.



Mr Khan on 28 May 2011
HappySqurriel said:

 

The reason for this is obvious, as a third party mediator you should not be making statements about what the outcomes of a negotiation should be prior to the negotiation happening; especially if you’re giving one side far more than they asked for while demanding the other side to sacrifice far more than they would ever be willing to.

I have been reading and watching the opinions of experts on this for the last couple of weeks, and it has become clear that salvaging these peace talks will become nearly impossible now due to Obama’s foolish statement.

The talks were unsustainable in that direction anyway. Fatah doubled down several times, and didn't get even the most basic point of a cessation of settlement expansions. Clearly their technique was invalid, and a strong hand of third party mediation is necessary to get anything resembling a fair deal for the Palestinians

Use of a strong third-party guarantor is often one of the most effective means of conflict resolution, due to the basic trust issue that exists in most peace negotiations. Clearly one was needed here, when Israel has proven utterly unwilling to make even the most basic concessions in the West Bank



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Rath on 29 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

The thing is some kind of military force is essentially required for a sovereign state. Israels conditions basically would give Palestine faux-sovereignity but leave Israel still holding de facto control. It'd basically be the status quo with a different veneer.


Tell that to Lichtenstein, Costa Rica, Microneisa, Grenada, Iceland...


Well Costa Rica, Grenada and Iceland all have paramilitary forces of some kind, even without a proper military. Lichtenstien as a microstate is a bit different.

Micronesia is a good example though, with their security carried out by the USA. However there is a different in having your security carried out by a ally in a mutually beneficial arrangement and having your security carried out by a historic enemy by their demands. The second one is essentially occupation.

And Palestine has a paramilitary force as it is right now.  Being demilitarized doesn't mean you can't have a particularly strong police force.  It just suggests you probably shouldn't have big missles, when your basic MO has been to fire small ones at will into your neighbors territory.


Israel however wants to have troops in any newly formed Palestine...



Around the Network
Kantor on 29 May 2011
Mr Khan said:

Independence should come with a mutual nonagression pact, but an independent Palestine has to have all the rights of a sovereign state or else its not proper independence, similar to if they got "independence" while they were still crisscrossed with Israeli-controlled "restricted zones."

The thought that a free and independent nation whose secondary ruling party's objective is to destroy Israel and kill all of its inhabitants would sign a non-aggression pact, and stick to it, is pretty laughable.

I can understand wanting to condemn Israel for some of its actions. That does not mean, however, that you have to support the Palestinians, because let's face it, at the moment, Hamas are a lot worse than the Israeli government.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 29 May 2011
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

The thing is some kind of military force is essentially required for a sovereign state. Israels conditions basically would give Palestine faux-sovereignity but leave Israel still holding de facto control. It'd basically be the status quo with a different veneer.


Tell that to Lichtenstein, Costa Rica, Microneisa, Grenada, Iceland...


Well Costa Rica, Grenada and Iceland all have paramilitary forces of some kind, even without a proper military. Lichtenstien as a microstate is a bit different.

Micronesia is a good example though, with their security carried out by the USA. However there is a different in having your security carried out by a ally in a mutually beneficial arrangement and having your security carried out by a historic enemy by their demands. The second one is essentially occupation.

And Palestine has a paramilitary force as it is right now.  Being demilitarized doesn't mean you can't have a particularly strong police force.  It just suggests you probably shouldn't have big missles, when your basic MO has been to fire small ones at will into your neighbors territory.


Israel however wants to have troops in any newly formed Palestine...

Not that i've read.  I have read however that they want the right to send troops in to take out various groups that continue to fire rockets and the like.

Which i'd say is totally reasonable... considering they're firing rockets and everything and you can't much trust the Palestinians to do anything about it... since they aren't now.



Kasz216 on 29 May 2011
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
 

 

The reason for this is obvious, as a third party mediator you should not be making statements about what the outcomes of a negotiation should be prior to the negotiation happening; especially if you’re giving one side far more than they asked for while demanding the other side to sacrifice far more than they would ever be willing to.

I have been reading and watching the opinions of experts on this for the last couple of weeks, and it has become clear that salvaging these peace talks will become nearly impossible now due to Obama’s foolish statement.

The talks were unsustainable in that direction anyway. Fatah doubled down several times, and didn't get even the most basic point of a cessation of settlement expansions. Clearly their technique was invalid, and a strong hand of third party mediation is necessary to get anything resembling a fair deal for the Palestinians

Use of a strong third-party guarantor is often one of the most effective means of conflict resolution, due to the basic trust issue that exists in most peace negotiations. Clearly one was needed here, when Israel has proven utterly unwilling to make even the most basic concessions in the West Bank

Or so we're lead to believe.  I'm still not convinced those leaks were geninue.

Afterall, the Palestine government says a lot were forged... even though having such things leaked, and the Israelis refusing would be a big PR boost to them.

People say they discounted them because the Palestinians would of been mad that they offered away that much and would be replaced....

if that was the case... why would they offer something that they knew they couldn't get Palestinians to accept anyway?

If anything what those negotiations show is that the government isn't preparing Palestine for reality.

As for what's fair?  That's exactly why it does need to be worked out between those two.

Afterall, we're in this position because Palestine attacked Israel.

Not the other way around.



Rath on 29 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:


Israel however wants to have troops in any newly formed Palestine...

Not that i've read.  I have read however that they want the right to send troops in to take out various groups that continue to fire rockets and the like.

Which i'd say is totally reasonable... considering they're firing rockets and everything and you can't much trust the Palestinians to do anything about it... since they aren't now.

I can't find a link atm but from what I've read Israel would like a substantial military presence in Palestine (ostensibly to deal with terrorism) and also control of Palestines border with Jordan. I can't see why the Palestinians would find those demands acceptable.