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.
rolling eyes
I apologize for wishful thinking out loud. ;)
I obviously don't support impeachment, but I do think you're really out of touch here on what this report and this appointment mean to the future of the Middle East. Things look very bad.
Possible .. all I know right now is that is Baker is an ass
No kidding and you going around spouting off things that are not factually is not helping matters
IOW the panel was composed of pre-9/11 thinkers.
Get back to me when you can post something serious to say
An excellent point.
Or maybe it is the senile O'Connor pretending still to be the perfect and unassailable supreme judge of the whole world like she did while seated on SCOTUS.
Frankly I am ashamed to be a Republican considering the gaggle of pc stooges, demented has-beens and plain sellouts controlling the so-called "party.
1. That until three weeks ago, after the bulk of this report was written and agreed to, Secretary Gates sat on this commission.
2. This commission's report calls for (1) the abandonment of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008 and (2) the abandonment of Israel.
3. Supporters of Israel, including John Bolton and Don Rumsfeld, are being purged from the Administration.
4. Hawks and supporters of Israel are being replaced by the likes of Gates.
Help me out here. Where exactly have I gone wrong? What makes you believe, if you do, that Gates opposes the ISG's report?
Additionally, what makes you think, if you do, that Bush is going to oppose the ISG's recomendations?
Unlike you .. I'm am going to wait to see what the President says and does before accusing him of things he hasn't done
So you really don't disagree with me, you're just holding out hope that Gates was coerced into sitting on the commission or that Bush is going to force Gates to oppose his own commission's report?
Actually the report calls for having 70,000 troops in Iraq after the first quater of 2008, and the report says nothing about abandoning Israel. I'm not sure where your info came from, but it is not factual.
Go away
You clearly have a different copy of the report that I have sitting on my desk in front of me. The report calls for a negligeable presence by the first quarter of 2008.
The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over pri- mary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue.
the report says nothing about abandoning Israel.
It calls for:
1. Giving Syria the Golan Heights, which would give Syria strategic control over all of Israel's territory. AND
2. Putting a "Right of Return" on the table, which would be Israel's destruction.
Oy, there's that old people smell!
As to the American Jewish vote, the 87% figure you cite is inaccuarate (I presume you are referring to the % who voted 'Rat for the House). An article by Richard Baehr in "The American Thinker" dated Nov. 15th(americanthinker.com) shows that the real figure is about 70%. Regardless of how politically naive a large percentage of Jewish voters were, the fact is that there aren't enough Jewish voters in the almost all the House districts that flipped to the Demonrats to have made any difference in the overall outcome.
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.