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.
"James Baker, an American Quisling. I am sickened."
If the folks in Washington weren't such a bunch of whores, they'd run him out of town. As it is, he'll probably receive all kinds of plaudits.
What the frack?
Why is all that stuff in what's supposed to be a study of Iraq?
Why can't these people just stick to the topic?
It's not appeasement for Baker, he just hates Israel, period. He wouldn't shed a tear if she was wiped off the map.
http://www.bakerbotts.com/offices/office.aspx?id=733fc9ba-30df-43fd-87b1-f91808f53570
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067906/
Yes him as well. He is not fit to defend this country.
He has Alzheimers. (He is out of his mind.)
"The WH is going to adopt this plan."
I seriously doubt that. Why would the White House endorse all the bad ideas of the American Left?
He has no right to "surrender" Israel.
The president must be aiming for 5% approval ratings.
Say hello to Hillary Rodham in '08.
Dammit.
I meant to imply that the result of the report was a foregone conclusion. Baker's views. Gates is in that Arabist Baker camp.
What do O'Conner or Jordan, others, know about the Mideast?
"Does Mr. Baker ever think more than one step ahead? Does he remember how well Czechoslovakia'38 played for "peace in our time"?"
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
So... why exactly did Bush appoint Gates? Do we no longer have a Republican President?
"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"
Someone said there are two groups of people in Washington: those that write things they don't sign, and those that sign things they don't write.
Would you knock it off with the Bush bashing ... it's old
If President Bush follows the advice of James Baker and the rest of the dwarves, the 2008 elections will make 2006 look like a banner year for Republicans.
Wonderful, just wonderful. Argh.
Meanwhile, Bolton and Rumsfeld have been dumped under the bus.
Why do you think anything will be different now?
We never did. The bushies are simply liberal RINOs. Can it get worse?
Because the "screw Israel" team has to be uniform.
We have the same President, the one who holds hands.
Don't give me that. I've supported Bush for six years -- including on this site. I wouldn't be bashing Bush if he weren't making bonehead decisions. This is one that happens to affect me personally, so I'm taking it personally.
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.