"Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed that Canada had objected to any language in the final communiqué that included mention of Israel's pre-1967 borders at the G8 meeting in Deauville, France, May, 2011."
In actuality, when pressed by Terry Milewski at that conference, Harper acknowledged that Canada's position on Israel—with support for UN Resolution 242 and support for a two-state solution—is long-standing and that he is not deviating from it. Moreover, Harper signed the Deauville declaration which states the signatories' "strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama on May 19, 2011." That "vision" explicitly supports the use of the pre-1967 borders as the starting point for any negotiation.
3 comments:
I think you need a little added nuance. It's important to note that supporting the borders as the starting point for negotiations is different from saying you want the end result to include a return to the 1967 borders.
And that is precisely why so many people got so touchy about language referring to the 1967 borders. They are a reference point for starting negotiation but it is impossible that any negotiated solution that includes those borders.
Whoops, I left the though uncompleted.
Harper objects to language in the final communique mentioning the 1967 borders because that would give to much prominence to the issue thereby giving Palestinians the false hope that they might win the 1967 borders back through negotiation. If they began to hope this that would make what is already a long-shot utterly impossible to achieve.
I think what Harper wants is to have his cake and eat it too: to appear to be staunchly defending Israel while still agreeing to the principles Obama outlined in May. He conceded to Milewski that he is not deviating from Canada's policy of a two-state solution and of using the 1967 borders as a starting point.
Post a Comment