Obama urges future Palestinian state be based on '67 borders
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I think it every time I have to change out one of those damned Briggs and Stratton diaphragms....
Which reminds me of a song.
YouTube - Johnny Horton The Battle Of New Orleans 1959 Best Video Quality
I was on England when this was popular, radio stations from Ireland were playing it constantly.
Yeah.....but the war had been over for two weeks!
Doesn't count.....lol
Now this can be blamed on President Obama opening his mouth without know the effects and influence the words of the President of the U.S. can cause. The other country's can say all they want and for the most part who cares. The U.S. speaks and the world listens. These deaths and future civilian deaths will be his fault, Israel will never give up the Golan.
MAJDAL SHAMS, Golan Heights – Israeli troops on Sunday battled hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters who tried to burst across Syria's frontier with the Golan Heights, killing a reported 20 people and wounding scores more in the second outbreak of deadly violence in the border area in less than a month.
The clashes, marking the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the 1967 Mideast war, drew Israeli accusations that Syria was orchestrating the violence to shift attention away from a bloody crackdown on opposition protests at home. The marchers, who had organized on Facebook, passed by Syrian and U.N. outposts on their way to the front lines.
Israeli troops battle protesters in Syria, 20 dead - Yahoo! News
MAJDAL SHAMS, Golan Heights – Israeli troops on Sunday battled hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters who tried to burst across Syria's frontier with the Golan Heights, killing a reported 20 people and wounding scores more in the second outbreak of deadly violence in the border area in less than a month.
The clashes, marking the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the 1967 Mideast war, drew Israeli accusations that Syria was orchestrating the violence to shift attention away from a bloody crackdown on opposition protests at home. The marchers, who had organized on Facebook, passed by Syrian and U.N. outposts on their way to the front lines.
Israeli troops battle protesters in Syria, 20 dead - Yahoo! News
So at what range were the people being shot at, 100's of yards across a minefield. At least the complaints about Syria being 'harsh' will nosedive into the ground. (not that it should entirely)
(in part)
Israeli gunfire killed 22 people and wounded about 350 others on Sunday as demonstrators on the Syrian side tried to cross the ceasefire line on the annexed Golan Heights, Syria's state-run SANA news agency reported.
22 Dead, 350 Hurt as Israeli Troops Fire on Naksa Day Protesters in Golan - Naharnet
(in part)
Israeli gunfire killed 22 people and wounded about 350 others on Sunday as demonstrators on the Syrian side tried to cross the ceasefire line on the annexed Golan Heights, Syria's state-run SANA news agency reported.
22 Dead, 350 Hurt as Israeli Troops Fire on Naksa Day Protesters in Golan - Naharnet
Israel sends it chefs into battle.
Bagels and humus were provided F.O.C. to those standing around the Golan Heights waiting to be shot by the nervous chefs.
4 chefs, a dishwasher and their dog named לגרוטאה.
You do what ever you can to protect your borders from alien interlopers. Who cares what range it was, what do you think would happen if Americans with the intent on taking over crashed border crossing gates with the intent of taking that land from Canada? You would just step aside and say welcome, I doubt it.
That'll stop em'!
I woke up at this one after a weekend of skiing in MT and nobody was home so I just drove on in to Canada.
Well ****. They are going to close that crossing. Apparently the 5 people a day that use it are devistated.
Canadian and American friends have banded together to fight the closure of a remote and little-used border crossing between Saskatchewan and Montana.
The Big Beaver portal, about 200 kilometres south of Regina, is slated to close April 1.
"I would compare it a little bit like having someone in your family die," Lee Cook, who lives in Montana but has farmland in
Saskatchewan, told CBC News in a recent interview. "It hits you right in the pit of your stomach and you wonder what you can do."
According to Canadian government reports, five vehicles per day use the border crossing.
Some of them are valued American customers in the hamlet of Big Beaver, 10 kilometres north of the border.
"We have several U.S. acquaintances and friends that specifically will come to Big Beaver because of the varied produce that they can purchase," resident Warren Volke said.
Volke said he makes about two trips per week into Montana.
He said it doesn't make sense to force farmers to make longer trips to tend their fields, when there is a road right there.
"For [farmers] to try to drive around with heavy and wide equipment, it would almost make them wonder if they should continue farming in Saskatchewan," Volke said.
nearest alternate border crossing is south of Coronach, Sask., about 30 kilometres west of the Big Beaver portal.
I would think the mine field would slow them down. If a person is now within range they become a personal threat??
Canadians would only need a 'whoa' sign before anything past that became a no mans land. I'm assuming if an American saw the same sign they would go past it just to find out what is being kept from them.
Last edited:
Ok, this is ludicrous.
Syria and Israel are technically still at war.
If you go running through practically and border on earth in a huge crowd.....you are going to wind up ventilated. The Canada-US border is an exception, but only one-way........try getting a crowd together to run into the USA across the "undefended" border.
I'll watch from here.
How much more should you expect to be ventilated if the country you happen to be charging FROM is at WAR with the country you are charging INTO?
Yes i'm sure protesters armed with stones was intending to steal land from an advanced military
The truth...
Milewski:Confused about 1967? Join the club
It's all Obama's fault. We wouldn't be in this fix if he hadn't uttered that fateful phrase, "1967 lines." Ever since, we've been trying to puzzle out why Prime Minister Stephen Harper objected to that phrase and whether his objection changes our long-standing policy on the Middle East. So far, it seems, the fiercely pro-Israel Prime Minister has strong reservations about Canada's policy - but his foreign minister says it stands anyway.
Confusing? Certainly.
First, let's be clear about what Obama did and did not say on May 19. He did not call upon Israel to return to its borders as they existed before it conquered the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai in the 1967 war. Rather, Obama re-stated long-standing U.S. policy that the parties should negotiate how to change those lines in order to achieve two states living in peace.
"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps," he said, "so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
This principle has been widely accepted for a very long time indeed — by the United Nations, by the United States, by the European Union, by Canada and by Israel. Everyone knows that Israel has built up substantial settlements on the other side of the '67 lines and that, to keep them in any peace accord, it must trade away chunks of land on the Israeli side.
So Obama's statement was no shocker — except that, until now, U.S. Presidents have chosen not to spell it out so explicitly. That's because it rubs Israelis the wrong way. Even those who do not believe peace is achievable agree that, if it were, it would involve trading land for peace, with the '67 line as the starting point in any negotiation.
But the 1967 line runs through Jerusalem. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem. The Palestinians don't accept that. Israel is prepared to trade away some lands — but not East Jerusalem. Best not to turn over that hornet's nest when you're trying to kick-start the peace process. It may be the bread-and-butter of diplomacy, but it's normally left out of Presidential speeches.
Enter the current Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu lost the 2009 Israeli election but formed a coalition with other minority parties to unseat the winner, Tzipi Livni of the Kadima party. She'd won while trying to negotiate land swaps along the 1967 lines with the Palestinian Authority. But Netanyahu took power anyway, thanks to his coalition with the Yisrael Beiteinu party of his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
Netanyahu went on to a rousing reception in the U.S. Congress — and then phoned Stephen Harper. We do not know exactly what they discussed, but we do know that Netanyahu's government is extremely concerned about the growing movement towards a UN declaration of statehood for the Palestinians. Such a declaration is expected in September and is supported by about 150 countries so far. Combined with Obama's "1967" speech, the theory goes, it will fatally complicate any peace negotiation. The Palestinians, Netanyahu fears, will be emboldened to believe they can re-divide Jerusalem, which his government sees as the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel.
Soon after Netanyahu's call, Harper left for the G8 summit and there, according to other delegations and to Israeli sources, insisted on the removal from the summit communiqué of a reference to Obama's "1967 lines." Harper did not deny doing this. Asked where the two states which Canadian policy calls for would go, if not along the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, Harper did not say. Instead, he told reporters that he could not support a G8 statement that was "not balanced."
So is Canadian policy, which is perfectly in line with Obama's comment, "not balanced?"
That's where John Baird stepped in. Fresh from briefings by his officials, Baird admitted he was still not familiar with UN Resolution 242. But he certainly knew enough to re-state current Canadian policy. It has not changed, he said. "We support a two-state solution," he added. "Obviously, that solution has got to be based on the 1967 borders ... with a mutually agreed upon swap as President Obama said."
So, according to Baird, Canadian policy remains in lockstep with the U.S. President's: 1967 borders; agreed swaps; just as Obama said. And that's exactly what Harper wanted removed from the G8 communiqué. According to the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, Avigdor Lieberman (Israel's minister of foreign affairs) was the first to phone and say thanks.
Confused about 1967? Join the club - Politics - CBC News
Milewski:Confused about 1967? Join the club
It's all Obama's fault. We wouldn't be in this fix if he hadn't uttered that fateful phrase, "1967 lines." Ever since, we've been trying to puzzle out why Prime Minister Stephen Harper objected to that phrase and whether his objection changes our long-standing policy on the Middle East. So far, it seems, the fiercely pro-Israel Prime Minister has strong reservations about Canada's policy - but his foreign minister says it stands anyway.
Confusing? Certainly.
First, let's be clear about what Obama did and did not say on May 19. He did not call upon Israel to return to its borders as they existed before it conquered the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai in the 1967 war. Rather, Obama re-stated long-standing U.S. policy that the parties should negotiate how to change those lines in order to achieve two states living in peace.
"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps," he said, "so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
This principle has been widely accepted for a very long time indeed — by the United Nations, by the United States, by the European Union, by Canada and by Israel. Everyone knows that Israel has built up substantial settlements on the other side of the '67 lines and that, to keep them in any peace accord, it must trade away chunks of land on the Israeli side.
So Obama's statement was no shocker — except that, until now, U.S. Presidents have chosen not to spell it out so explicitly. That's because it rubs Israelis the wrong way. Even those who do not believe peace is achievable agree that, if it were, it would involve trading land for peace, with the '67 line as the starting point in any negotiation.
But the 1967 line runs through Jerusalem. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem. The Palestinians don't accept that. Israel is prepared to trade away some lands — but not East Jerusalem. Best not to turn over that hornet's nest when you're trying to kick-start the peace process. It may be the bread-and-butter of diplomacy, but it's normally left out of Presidential speeches.
Enter the current Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu lost the 2009 Israeli election but formed a coalition with other minority parties to unseat the winner, Tzipi Livni of the Kadima party. She'd won while trying to negotiate land swaps along the 1967 lines with the Palestinian Authority. But Netanyahu took power anyway, thanks to his coalition with the Yisrael Beiteinu party of his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
Netanyahu went on to a rousing reception in the U.S. Congress — and then phoned Stephen Harper. We do not know exactly what they discussed, but we do know that Netanyahu's government is extremely concerned about the growing movement towards a UN declaration of statehood for the Palestinians. Such a declaration is expected in September and is supported by about 150 countries so far. Combined with Obama's "1967" speech, the theory goes, it will fatally complicate any peace negotiation. The Palestinians, Netanyahu fears, will be emboldened to believe they can re-divide Jerusalem, which his government sees as the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel.
Soon after Netanyahu's call, Harper left for the G8 summit and there, according to other delegations and to Israeli sources, insisted on the removal from the summit communiqué of a reference to Obama's "1967 lines." Harper did not deny doing this. Asked where the two states which Canadian policy calls for would go, if not along the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, Harper did not say. Instead, he told reporters that he could not support a G8 statement that was "not balanced."
So is Canadian policy, which is perfectly in line with Obama's comment, "not balanced?"
That's where John Baird stepped in. Fresh from briefings by his officials, Baird admitted he was still not familiar with UN Resolution 242. But he certainly knew enough to re-state current Canadian policy. It has not changed, he said. "We support a two-state solution," he added. "Obviously, that solution has got to be based on the 1967 borders ... with a mutually agreed upon swap as President Obama said."
So, according to Baird, Canadian policy remains in lockstep with the U.S. President's: 1967 borders; agreed swaps; just as Obama said. And that's exactly what Harper wanted removed from the G8 communiqué. According to the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, Avigdor Lieberman (Israel's minister of foreign affairs) was the first to phone and say thanks.
Confused about 1967? Join the club - Politics - CBC News