SHOULD HARPER BACK OBAMA ON ISRAEL?

Today, the G8 summit begins in Deauville, France.  Seven of the eight countries involved back President Obama’s policies on the Middle East, including returning to Israel’s 1967 borders with appropriate land swaps.  Only one country is out of step.  Our own Canada led by Stephen Harper.

Mr. Harper made his opposition to Obama’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian problem very clear after the Obama speech.

A British official at the conference said this:  “Mr. Harper is clearly  the odd man out on this one and it won’t do him any favours.”Canada has not been included in preliminary discussions at the summit because of Mr. Harper’s isolationist position.  In fact, Mrt. Harper’s real position seems to be to back Israel right or wrong.

Should the G8 countries be able to take a unified position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Should Harper get on board with the other seven?

What do you think?

8 Comments »

  1. 1

    No, Harper should hold firm.

    …actually makes me proud to be a Canadian for once.

  2. 2
    joe agnost Says:

    Regarding Harper’s position on Israel: Evangelical Christianity… the stupid that keeps on giving.

  3. 3
    Neil McKenty Says:

    What kind of policy is it that supports Israel right or wrong? Makes about aas much sense as going the wrong direction on a one-way street.

  4. 4

    Neil asks:

    What kind of policy is it that supports Israel right or wrong?

    The right kind of policy.

  5. Harper has been a U.S. groupie, for once he shows some spine but for the wrong reason and at the wrong time.
    Well the R.O.C. elected him, gave him a majority and we are collectively stuck with him for at least 4 years.

  6. 6
    Robert Isler Says:

    I applaud Harper’s stance to stand firm with a fellow democracy whatever the other cowards decide.

  7. 7
    Regis Jones Says:

    Well, Harper was manipulated by bad advice, for, Obama was just reiterating international law!

    1. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention (in force since the end of WWII) to acquire territory by war. Under the Geneva convention, Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders, unless a negotiated compromise (ie a land swap is reached).

    2. Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention (1949): it is illegal for an occupier to transfer part of its own population into occupied territories. The settlements violate this principle of international law, and every American President in my memory has condemned them.

    3. Under international law, every refugee has the right to eventually be repatriated to their home of origin. In fact: “…all refugees and displaced persons have the right to have restored to them any housing, land or property of which they were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived”. You can debate as to whether Palestinians were forcibly displaced as a result of ethnic cleansing (former Israeli Foreign Minister and Camp David negotiator for Israel, Shlomo Ben-Ami, acknowledges in his recent book, that Palestinians were massacred and forcibly displaced in the years and months leading up to the 1948 war but compares it to America and its treatment of aboriginals and other disenfranchised groups), but even if not, refugee includes people who left out of a “well-founded fear” of persecution even if the persecution had not yet taken place.

    Israel is the only country that has violated all of these principles of International Law and gotten away with it carte blanche, and its precisely because American leaders sing the song of international law, but continue to finance the Israeli war machine and refused to support sanctions like are imposed on other flagrant violators of international law. More ironically, the PLO has consistently agreed to accept less than what the Palestinians are entitled to UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, and Israel still hasn’t taken it. Jerusalem is occupied territory. The PLO was willing to split it in half. The PLO was willing to accept 50% of the illegal settlements as they existed in 2000. The PLO was willing to say that even though 6 million Palestinians have a right of return under international law, 400,000 is ok. Israel refused it as it refused to divide Jerusalem, it refused to reduce the settlements to 50% and it refused any right of return. And then said “we offered them a two-state solution, and they rejected it. Blame the PLO”. And waged an aggressive propaganda war portraying its opponents (who were willing to accept less than their rights just for peace) as mindless fanatics driven by blind hatred (and not by their desire to get something less than the basic human rights they are entitled to under law).

  8. 8
    Neil McKenty Says:

    Regis,

    Thanks for your informed comment especially as it relates to Israel’s obligations under international law. Sady, our Harper government is the only one in the world that backs Israel, right or wrong.


RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 86 other followers