Go Harper: Canada Rejects Obama “1967” Intervention


canadian-prime-minister-stephen-harperCanada refuses to join the United States in calling for Israel to return to 1949 Armistice borders, the Ottawa Globe and Mail reported Monday.

At a briefing ahead of the G8 summit that is about to begin in France, federal Canadian officials said the basis for the negotiations must be mutually agreed upon by Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“What the government of Canada supports is basically a two-state solution that is negotiated,” a senior federal official said. “If it’s [the] border, if it’s other issues, it has to be negotiated, it cannot be unilateral action.”

When the officials were “pressed by reporters,” the Globe and Mail said, they explained that “both the Israelis and the Palestinians have to decide on their bottom lines, which the Israelis have said will not include a return to the 1967 border.”

An official who spoke on condition of anonymity said: “If the two parties are of the view that this is a starting point, that is fine for them.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, added that Canada’s position continues to be the search for a two-state solution. “No solution, ultimately, is possible without both parties sitting down, negotiating and agreeing on what that final outcome will look like,” he said.

Read more at: Arutz Sheva.

{Arutz Sheva/Matzav.com}


  1. Im confused “which the Israelis have said will not include a return to the 1967 border.”
    Obama said that too, both on thursday and again yestrday for those who dont understand basic English and need things spelled out.
    Who says otherwise? not even Abbas says otherwise (at least not in the english media).

  2. As a Canadian, I continue to be so proud of Prime Minister Harper. He is truly Israel’s best friend on the political scene and a breath of fresh air. All the more, because there are no political benefits in the stance that he continues to uphhold other than he feels it is morally right.

  3. As a Canadian, I am really proud of our Prime Minister, who has the guts to go against the flow in favour of what is right and what is wrong.

  4. Yankel, one of the lefty PR cronies, beat you.

    Good to see king hussain’s servents hard at work. I guess it’s the only job available in the ecconomy O and his friends butchered

  5. #8 (or anybody else)time to put your money where your mouth is. If you can provide a quote (with source so it can be verified) of Obama saying anything differnt than Bush’s position as you claim, ie that Israel would have to give up all the land liberated in 67, going back to the borders as they were on the eve of the war. I’ll give $100 to the tzedaka of your choosing. The quote has to be from Obama this is the 21st century everything is written/recorded somewhere (a real mussar haskel for life btw). quotes from other people/media (mis)interpreting Obama dont count ie id like to see Obama’s words not somebody else’s take on them. It has to be a quote from Obaama espousing a position differnt than Bush’s. namely that Israel would have to go back to the 67 borders (a quote from Bush saying Israel could keep everyhing liberated in 67 would also be against Obama and thus is perfectly acceptable)
    If you cant, admit you are driven by blind irrational hatred which prevents you from thinking criticly, and stop hocking a cheinek

  6. Obama on 5/19/11: “So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

    Obama clearly stated that the basis, or starting point, of negotiations should be a “viable Palestine”, which he defined as having permanent borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt and based on the 1967 lines. His reference to land swaps only allows for 3 major settlement blocks to be kept by Israel in exchange for an equal amount of land elsewhere. It specifically does not allow for Israeli retention of the strategic Jordan Valley, which would preclude a Palestinian border with Jordan.

    Bush on 4/14/04: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”

    Bush’s letter to then-PM Sharon did not say they had to use the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations and did allow for Israeli demands to control the strategic Jordan Valley. They are not the same thing at all!

  7. this is why our country is blessed
    As it is is written in Genesis “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed”
    God saying to Abraham referring to Israelis.
    We should suuport Israel.

  8. #12:

    Why are you making things so difficult for the Obama/Arab PR guys? I guess now they’ll have to call you racist. What other garabage can they try?

    Thanks for your post

  9. thanks for trying yanki. But you do realize you are translating Obamas words he said “land swaps” which can mean anything it is exactly what bush said. As for bush and 67′ here is a direct quote from the Bush endorsed roadmap “The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah – endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit…”
    As you may know UNSCR was written right after 67′ and called for “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” (note: not ALL THE territories and not even THE territories). It called for using pre 67′ lines as a framework for peace. Though due to new realities the lines would be different, or as Obama put it “land swaps” would be needed. This is what Bush endorsed in his roadmap.
    Obama reitirated the exaact same thing.
    Please try again, the tzedaka of your choice awaits

  10. To Yankel,

    Without searching for quotes, Netanyahu met with Obama for 1 1/2 hours and found it necessary to publicly disagree with his last speech in front of Obama without a rebuttal from Obama. I guess you know what he said better than those two do.

  11. The statements of Bush and Obama differ in two major areas:
    1) Bush supported Israel’s claim to Yerushalayim – Obama doesn’t mention it
    2) Bush specifically mentioned the 3 major settlement blocs – Obama did not.

    When Obama talks about land swaps, he does not specify any region that is beyond negotiation.

  12. #16 I dont know better than those two, but It seems that I do know better than Yanki and most of the posters here who just parrot silly talking points without thinking for themselves.
    Take your comment for example, who cares if Netanyahu disagreed with Obama. Of course he did! I do too! thats not what we are discussing. I dont like Obama’s proposal one bit, I think it spells disaster for Israel. What we are discussing is if Obama’s position is the same as Bush’s, which it absolutly is and nobody here has been able to prove otherwise. The fact that Netanyahu disagreed tells us nothing whatsoever. (Although Obama sitting there silently during Netanyahu’s rebuttal, does tell us something…)
    #14 He didnt make anything difficult, youll note I didnt call him racist, and I resent the “aRab PR” comment, I’ll bet Im more pro-Israel than you, unless you too have an Israeli flag hanging in your home. Speaking of trying garbage, care to try the challenge I propsed in #10 above, or does that make things difficult for you?

  13. #15 yankel: Obama has clearly stated US policy as to where Israeli borders should be (albeit w/ land swaps). This means that its not negotiatable, but raher a starting point; and Abbas can now claim negotiations will only start after this is agreed upon by Netanyahu. This gives him upper hand to negotiate further to obtain till ’49’ armistice lines, which he stubbornly believes he will get eventually. Bush stated that ‘negotiations’ btw Israel and Palestinians should be based on ’67’ occupation; very different. Also ending occupation of ’67’ doesn’t mean receding to ’67’ lines, rather that after agreement is reached, Israeli control beyond ’67’ lines will not be considered occupation. Please don’t twist facts, and try placing Obama words as being in line with Bush.

  14. #18, Im not sure where you got your info from, but in decision points Bush writes that “east” jerusalem was going to be part of a palestinian state, sadly Obama agrees with this.
    As for specificly mentioning 3 blocs, how is that a difference in policy? Would you like to ellaborate please?

  15. Yankel,

    I am translating nothing: the term “land swaps” goes back to the Clinton Camp David talks of July, 2000 and refers specifically to the land encompassed by the Israeli settlement blocs of Ariel, Gush Etzion and Ma’ale Adumim. It has never included the Jordan Valley, which Obama clearly stated would have to be given back in order that a Palestinian state should share a border with Jordan.

    Bush never demanded that of Israel!