Posted on 12/06/2006 1:00:35 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
A reference to Palestinians' "right of return" in the report issued by the high-level Iraq Study Group broke a diplomatic taboo which sparked immediate concern in Israel and surprise among Middle East policy experts.
The reference was buried deep inside a 160-page report that urged US President George W. Bush to renew efforts to revive Israel-Palestinian peace talks as part of a region-wide bid to end the chaos in Iraq.
"This report is worrisome for Israel particularly because, for the first time, it mentions the question of the 'right of return' for the Palestinian refugees of 1948," said a senior Israeli official, who was reacting to the US policy report on condition he not be identified.
A Middle East analyst who was involved in the Iraq Study Group discussions but did not participate in drafting the report expressed surprise when the reference was pointed out to him by a reporter.
"It's hard to know whether that language got in there because of carelessness -- I know there were many revisions up to the very last minute -- or whether it was a deliberate attempt to fuse something to the Bush rhetoric which wasn't there before," the analyst said.
The 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians calls for a resolution of the issue of Israeli and Palestinian "refugees" as part of a final status agreement that would include the creation of a Palestinian state.
But they do not use the term "right of return", which is a long-standing Palestinian demand -- rejected by Israel -- that Palestinians who fled or were driven out of what was to become the Jewish state in 1948, as well as their descendants, be allowed to return home.
Bush, in a 2002 speech in the White House Rose Garden, became the first US president to formally back the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, but he also did not mention a right of Palestinian 'return'.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group's co-chairman is former secretary of state James Baker, who as the top diplomat for Bush's father in the early 1990s clashed with Israel over its handling of the Palestinian issue.
Among his group's 79 recommendations for a policy shift on Iraq, number 17 concerned five points it said should be included in a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The final point in the list was: "Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement along the lines of President Bush's two-state solution, which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return and the end of conflict."
"'Right of return' is not in Oslo I or Oslo II, it's not in the Bush Rose Garden speech, it's not even in UN 181, the original partition resolution -- it's part of the Palestinian discourse," said the US analyst.
He has pulled out any troops. That's what matters. Bolton is a side issue. Rumsfeld is more complicated than a simple "thrown under the bus" would indicate. It's too bad Gates was the choice, but nobody is perfect or indespensible, including Rumsfeld. I've heard from good people that there might have been problems with Rumsfeld.
But whatever. I'll base my opinion on Bush on one thing: troop levels. If they go up or stay the same, good. If they go down: bad.
Yea yea .. I've heard it before
This is one that happens to affect me personally, so I'm taking it personally.
It affects us all .. that is why I'm in no mood for typical Bash bashing crap
Now we find the terrorists are in bed with those who rule Washington.
That's really all one needs to know about this "American".
Yep, I am afraid so. But the good news is James Carville had to decline. He had another committment....
Unfortunately it's also richly deserved.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Another wonderful idea, and as James Baker has suggested, best worked out at a conference without Israel, to avoid the influence of the pernicious Jews. NOT from the mouth of Jimmy Carter or Cindy McKinney.
Baker wants Israel excluded from regional conference...As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure
Let me make sure this is correct.
1. The President appoints a panel that proceeds to issue a series of recomendations that include putting the very existence of Israel on the negotiating table with the Arabs...
2 The President then appoints one of the lead authors of that report to be his Secretary of Defense...
3. The President then fires the most prominent supporter of Israel in his government as UN Ambassador.
And you're asking me to hold the Bush bashing? Can you explain to me, why?
Let the pali's return to Jordan.
Congress appointed them.
The president didn't appoint the panel .. Frank Wolf started this mess and gave the study group the money
If Baker had his way, the jews would be returning to the ovens.
The GOP members were all appointed on the President's recommendation. He's obviously not responsible for Vernon Jordan or Leon Panetta. He also didn't have to appoint a study author to be his Secretary of Defense -- presumably Frank Wolf doesn't manage White House staffing.
There are no Palis, they are just Arabs. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don't forget Vernon Jordan, the impeached one's golfing buddy.
I just reread you post and you are so full of BS
You also outted yourself
No .. Baker picked them
???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.