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.
Privately, many more did.
So, what does Israel have to do with our fight against Iraqi insurgents (other than that Israel doesn't mind Saddam being gone)?
It should be said, though, that Israel is the one unifying force in the Muslim world. They're so anti-Semitic that no matter how often they hate each other, the corrupt leaders can raise the Star of David and they'll turn around and start shooting towards Tel Aviv.
James Vidkun Baker Quisling?
The commission's makeup foretold its conclusion.
It was appointed by Congress in March (ie pre-election).
"They are all obsolescent and need to be scrapped.
And again, what about Committee Member Robert Gates, who resigned less than a month ago so he could serve as Secretary of Defense? He helped author this nonsense."
I am uneasy about Gates serving as Sec. of Def. as well.
I truly believe President Bush is a sincere Christian and a noble figure, but he has been "handled" from the outset of his Presidential run by a cadre of globalists, much like Reagan was. I shuddered during the 2000 election aftermath when James Baker and Warren Christopher emerged to represent the factions struggling to obtain power. Seeing Bush pull in such types, including Henry Kissinger (go read his book "Diplomacy" where he talks about the third and final push towards a new world order), it shakes my faith in the viability of our nation.
People want to blame the "neo-cons" but it has been the Trilateralist/CFR types who set the terms for entry into the war, who sent Colin Powell in to the UN with dicey intelligence to justify the war, and have intentionally mismanaged it to bring us to this point. Their objective is now evident: weaken the US in the region, eliminate Israel as a party to regional talks, and eventually eliminate the problem Israel's existence creates for those seeking to create a global government.
Bush is and has been a puppet. The political process in the US has become a sham for a privileged class of influential oligarchs.
Exactly.
Look, I dislike Baker enormously, but I think accusing him of being a Nazi is over the top. Baker's just an amoral fool.
There is a difference between an allusion and a quote..
I am not sure "addressing" the issue of "right of return" means accepting some version of it. It is an issue on the table. Of course the concept should be rejected. Maybe Baker favors it, but I would be surprised if he did. I am not quite ready to accept that he favors something where it is totally obvious that the result would be the rapid destruction of Israel. Hopefully someone will ask him.
You've sounded and acted like a complete idiot throughout this entire thread.
ask me if I care what you think?
(This got long)
I find the lies of omission, specifically about the extremely close ties GH Bush and Gates had during their CIA careers, here that were not reported on, were not mentioned, were not even brought up by Democrats during the confirmation hearings for evening tv news newsbytes, to be the most disturbing part.
Gates had been GH Bush's trusted subordinate during various times for 27 years in the CIA, then again during the Reagan/Bush I presidencies. Serious questions as to whether GW Bush is now being handled by the same group of men the same way Reagan was during the last 3 years of his presidency and fight with Alzheimer's. The same group of men now stand beside GW Bush today.
There is no question in my mind as to why Gates was chosen, his loyalty to the Bush family is absolute, as there is no question that Baker wrote and molded the vast majority of this report. I question if Baker and Gates have any reason to acquiesce to GW Bush's policy decisions.
It's been 12 years since Bush I was out of office, Baker has been on the Saud payroll every day since Clinton's inauguration, Baker has gone on Larry King bragging of this career as Saud pointman.
Gates though, is a medium sized fish in this school, it's highly unlikely he will depart from Bush I and Baker Israel policy, and that means Israel being told to not respond when Saddam dropped Scuds on Israel's population centers. Like Olmert was told to do by the Bush White House in the last weeks.
I am now certain that GW Bush feels isolated amongst his own advisors, and is going to have to find some strong personal fortitude if he isn't going to rollover like this father did when he was being advised by this same group of advisors. GW Bush is probably as disgusted with Olmert and Livni as Freepers are, and just as Bush naturally pulled away from Schroeder and Martin and Chirac out of disgust and futility, he will do so with Olmert.
GW Bush will have been 2 years out of office and Olmert could still be running Israel into the ground. I'm afraid the Israeli election had both Arab and American sharks senseing blood in the water.
You don't kick your allies while they are down, and this is exactly what the Baker report did. Baker doesn't consider Israel an ally, so it was done with clear intention to permanently alter the dynamics of the region and hasten the future war Israel will fight.
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.