Posted on 07/05/2010 8:20:34 PM PDT by Ooh-Ah
As Prime Minister Netanyahu arrives for his 5th set of meetings with President Obama, the headline in one newspaper is, "Obama mum on Bush's borders for Israel," noting, "The White House has declined to publicly affirm commitments made by President Bush to Israel in 2004 on the final borders of the Jewish state."
Two points: In the April 2004 letter President Bush defines no borders for Israel; and the House and Senate passed concurrent resolutions adopting the President's formulation of the requirements of security for both Israel and the Palestinians.
The "borders" paragraph in the Bush letter reads:
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.
This puts a lie to the idea floating in the current administration that "everyone knows" what a "two-state solution" would look like and therefore the missing ingredient must be presidential pressure to make it happen - pressure on Israel, as it happens.
The Bush Administration clearly understood that the borders of the two states would NOT look like the 1949 armistice lines (the so-called "Green line" and never the "1967 borders"), and referred back to UNSC Resolution 242 which called for Israel to receive, "Secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There was wisdom in the formulation, "Any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
And far from being the work of a single man, or single administration, Congress took up the Bush letter in June 2004, passing H. Con. Res. 460 by vast margins in both Houses by both parties:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
1. strongly endorses the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which will strengthen the security and well-being of the State of Israel; and
2. supports continuing efforts with others in the international community to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel.
If an allied, democratic government cannot rely on continuity in the word of an American President for policy specifically supported and endorsed by the Congress of the United States, on what can that - or any other - government rely?
Email: info@jinsa.org
Sorry, but the United States has a representative government, and in 2006 the voters elected a Congress opposed to Bush”s foreign policy. In 2008, they followed up by electing a rabid anti-Semite to the Presidency.
In both cases, these choices were bolstered by very strong support among American Jews.
In any event, the security of Israel is no longer the foreign policy of the United States. This is the clear and entirely forseeable result of the choices Americans made in 2006 and 2008.
Perhaps 2010 will be different.
What you said so eloquently is absolutely correct. It is incomplete, however. We are also a republic. An average Joe or Jane do not know that foreign policy --- that is, relationships with countries that care less about our voting system --- do have the right to expect considerable continuity of our actions. The elected officials certainly do have that knowledge. This is exactly why our foreign policy has always, up until very recently, very largely bipartisan. Regardless of the party in power, presidents gave considerable weight to continuity --- yes, even for the sake of continuity itself.
P.S. I could not deduce the relevance of Jews supporting the democrats to the issue being discussed. There does not appear to be any. When Obama was ill-mannered with the British queen and did not bother to meet with the Prime-minister, did you likewise report how many Anglo-Saxons supported Obama? When he withdrew our missiles from Poland, did you note how many Poles in Chicago (quite a Democratic town) supported Obama? I must have missed those posts.
I, too, believe in full withdrawal — of the so-called “Palestinians” from ISraeli territory. They may retuen to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They would be free to keep up their holy sites, and to return for holy days, etc., otherwise, Israel is ISRAEL. Now, if they are Israeli Arabs, they are welcome to maintain their FULL citizenship, without restriction — as do ALL Israeli Arabs UNLESS they has self-identified with terrorist organizations or participated in violence.
This sounds like a logical and sensible policy for any reasonable nation whose security is at risk and who faces imminent threats at any and every moment from enemies who surround you....
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.
Thanks.
That has nothing to do with borders, it refers to security agreements that where agreed to after the Oslo Accords.
Israel was idiotic in agreeing to withdraw Israeli security forces from some major Arab towns on Arafat's promise of peace. Arafat lied. Those towns became terror centers from which suicide bombers were sent all over Israel. After the Passover Seder Bombing in 2002, Israel finally responded and retook those areas.
The Arabs and the World always demand a return to whatever was the status quo ante before the Arabs took their most recent shot at Israel- and lost.
oh..I see. thanks
FreepRegards
I heard Bibi Netenyahu speak (at a dinner), and he said that Israel had never had a better friend in the Oval Office than George W. Bush.
Bush may have been a friend to Israel, but Condoleezza Rice wasn’t.
And unfortunately, in the later crucial years of his term, he followed her anti Israel advice.
And I'm guessing he'd much rather have Condi dealing with him than Hillary.
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.