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.
How about instead you and the other Bush Über Alles go away.
We allowed politicians to fight VietNam. We must never repeat that mistake.
Nope
Now you're just being rude. Grow up.
I'd walk through fire to vote for Dick Cheney as President. Wish it could happen.
Good. Stay and enjoy as more and more Freepers realize the quality of our President.
I'm pretty sure that he and the rest in Washington plan the same thing (the "Right of Return") for the US as well, which is the only reason I can think of for their border policies.
Mark
That same line of thinking will soon lead to the Mexican 'right to return" read: takeover and subsequent murder of the Gringo. As they have stated will occur in the near future.
White man is doomed!
I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Remember, this "report" is nothing more than a bunch of suggestions. Hopefully, the President will give a reasoned rejection for these suggestions, although I don't hold out much hope for the media reporting any of those reasons. I'm sure that the headlines will read, "Bush (never President Bush) rejects All-Star commission's reports out of hand."
Mark
If he were going to do that, why did he appoint a commisioner his Secretary of Defense? Not exactly the go-to guy, I would think.
These remaining troops that will be left behind imbeded with Iraqi units are expected to number around 70,000. All the report says is that the Iraqi miltary will hopefully take over control of Iraq in 2008. That is a good thing and was the primary goal of the Iraq rebuilding effort. The report doesn't really say anything that new. some people are acting disappointed that our goals maybe accomplished in about a year. These 70,000 troops who will remain at that time will be able to go after terrorist cells, which is what they are trained to do. It will be a good thing when our troops no longer have to act as civil servants to the Iraqi people.
Incoming Secretary of Defense Gates... and Sandra Day O'Connor, among others. Great bunch!
IIRC, it also included Leon Panetta and Lawrence Eagleburger (wasn't he Sec State under Carter?)
Good leftists and dems all: Great friends of the US and Israel /sarc
Mark
I've seen that 70,000 figure all over the news, but nowhere in any of the ISG's report does it mention that figure. In fact, the report strongly indicates that we're talking about less than 20,000, and possibly no more than 2-5,000 by the first quarter of 2008. That's a full withdrawal.
The figure is the Pentagon's estimate of how many troops they hope to have in Iraq in 2008 in the same role suggeested by the commision. This commision will probably be helpful for us in trying to determine where we are having problems and where we are succeeding. However, the commission has not really recommended anything that wasn't alreaqdy in the planning in regard to troop levels. The policy differences they have suggested deal with our relationships and stances on Syria and Iran. The group should have been called the middle east study group.
I don't think he will either and I hope he throws that Baker report in the trash
That reminds me of the old "If the Czar only knew!" attitude. Wake up -- Bush just appointed an author of this disastrous report to be Secretary of Defense. Bush isn't flying blind, he's setting policy right here, and right now.
I will refer to him as James Baker Quisling..
Probably lots of Saudi money..
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.