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.
F'ing Has-Beens, to a man.
And I mean you, Sandra.
Just globalists being globalists.
Egads. No wonder the report is nothing but rambling. Instead of appointing politicians, they should have appointed someone who's got a brain.
Actually it was 38% -- but a record nonetheless.
Leon Panetta, Vernon Jordan, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, and a bunch of other septuagenarians.
Or to his daily workspace, under Prince Abdullah's desk.
That report leaves out Gates, who resigned for purposes of political expediency (aka his pending nomination) just ten days ago.
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.
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)
Excellent point.
I fully expect W to ignore this piece of garbage.
They might as well have had Pat Buchanan write the report.
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.
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.
Again, I have to ask. If he was going to do that, why did he just appoint one of its authors Secretary of Defense?
"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?
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.
True. I was thinking of real Jews--the Orthodox, of whom around 80% voted for Bush in 2004.
So he's going to ignore his brand new Secretary of Defense?
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.