Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Baker panel's mention of Palestinian "right of return" raises eyebrows
AFP ^ | December 6, 2006

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.


TOPICS: Egypt; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; Russia; Syria; US: Florida; US: Georgia; US: Texas; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1938; 2016election; appeasementdeluxe; baker; egypt; election2016; florida; gaza; georgia; hamas; iran; iraq; israel; israeldropdead; jamesbaker; jebbush; jstreet; lebanon; munich; newtgingrich; rightofreturn; russia; saudiarabia; sinai; surrendertojihad; syria; tedcruz; texas; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-247 next last
To: MadIvan

F'ing Has-Beens, to a man.

And I mean you, Sandra.


41 posted on 12/06/2006 1:21:52 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Crusades were indigenous peoples' counter-attacks against imperialist foreign Muslim invaders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: montag813
It wouldn't suprise me if that's their intention.

Just globalists being globalists.

42 posted on 12/06/2006 1:22:00 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Egads. No wonder the report is nothing but rambling. Instead of appointing politicians, they should have appointed someone who's got a brain.


43 posted on 12/06/2006 1:22:03 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Yes, but 70% of them voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Actually it was 38% -- but a record nonetheless.

44 posted on 12/06/2006 1:22:30 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Who was on this panel besides Baker?

Leon Panetta, Vernon Jordan, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, and a bunch of other septuagenarians.

45 posted on 12/06/2006 1:23:05 PM PST by NeoCaveman (I support our troops when they open fire on our journalists (and all other times too, of course))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Unacceptable. Baker needs to return to the golf course, post haste.

Or to his daily workspace, under Prince Abdullah's desk.

46 posted on 12/06/2006 1:23:11 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven; MadIvan

That report leaves out Gates, who resigned for purposes of political expediency (aka his pending nomination) just ten days ago.


47 posted on 12/06/2006 1:23:24 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Because he is showing his true colors. Israel is being sold out by a Republican president.
All of the things the left said about the President were just a smoke screen. He is a spineless leftist through and through and we fell for it twice.
Welcome to one party rule.
Anybody still wanting Condi as president? She is just "W" house gofer.


48 posted on 12/06/2006 1:29:34 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative; linear; zerosix; Brad Cloven; All

from the article:

"'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."

WHOOPS!!!! It IS in UN Res 194 date 11 December 1948.

Here is the text of section 11:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/unr194.html

(Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR)




49 posted on 12/06/2006 1:29:43 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

Excellent point.


50 posted on 12/06/2006 1:29:51 PM PST by FarRightFanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

I fully expect W to ignore this piece of garbage.


51 posted on 12/06/2006 1:30:45 PM PST by samtheman (The Democrats are the DhimmiGods of the New Religion of PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

They might as well have had Pat Buchanan write the report.


52 posted on 12/06/2006 1:30:58 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Williams
James Baker, an American Quisling. I am sickened.

That is the first time I have seen the word "quisling" posted on this web site and not had my head explode.

You, sir, are the very first person to use the word correctly and in connection to the person who DESERVES to be called that.

53 posted on 12/06/2006 1:31:13 PM PST by Howlin (44 days to Destin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: montag813
What Jew-haters like Baker forget is that by demanding Israel "give back" annexed territory and permit a "right of return" for one-time inhabitants, they are setting a precedent by which others in the future can legitimately demand that the United States "give back" Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to Mexico, and permit a "right of return" for perhaps 100 million Mexicans, and the removal of millions of Americans from their "settlements". In their zeal to destroy the land of the Jews, these bastards threaten to undermine the foundations of this nation.

Exactly.

One in 7 Mexicans work in the US already. The Bush administration has been actively involved in the amnesty movement since his elecation. His language on the middle east changed almost immediately after his election. Obviously, Baker and his fathers "advisors" have been influencing his administration. Perhaps a stronger word than "influence" could be used.

54 posted on 12/06/2006 1:31:17 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

James Baker = Neville Chamberlain


55 posted on 12/06/2006 1:32:17 PM PST by Spiff (Death before Dhimmitude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
I fully expect W to ignore this piece of garbage.

Again, I have to ask. If he was going to do that, why did he just appoint one of its authors Secretary of Defense?

56 posted on 12/06/2006 1:32:34 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

"Unacceptable. Baker needs to return to the golf course, post haste."


Or finally be put into a retirement home with Lee Hamilton and Jimmah Cahtah. I mean this in all seriousness, why can't these people just go away? Why can't they just retire like other older people who are 137+ years old?


57 posted on 12/06/2006 1:32:47 PM PST by FarRightFanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Don't you guys get it? The WH is going to adopt this plan. Why on earth would they have nominated Gates if they weren't on the same page? Why would they do something so unspeakably self-destructive as to nominate a Secretary of Defense who they would clash with right out of the gate? This is an unmitigated disaster.


58 posted on 12/06/2006 1:32:49 PM PST by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Actually it was 38% -- but a record nonetheless.

True. I was thinking of real Jews--the Orthodox, of whom around 80% voted for Bush in 2004.

59 posted on 12/06/2006 1:33:05 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
I fully expect W to ignore this piece of garbage.

So he's going to ignore his brand new Secretary of Defense?

60 posted on 12/06/2006 1:34:06 PM PST by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-247 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson