The Bush letter is the law of the land
One of the things that disappointed many of Israel's supporters regarding Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Obama this week was that Obama still has not endorsed the 2004 Bush letter - which recognized that in any final settlement with the 'Palestinians' Israel cannot be expected to go back to the 1949 armistice lines. In fact, the Obama administration continues to pretend that the letter does not exist.Well, not only does the letter exist, it even got a Congressional endorsement shortly after it was written in 2004.
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.”Someone ought to ask Secretart of State Clinton that question. She was the one who claimed she 'couldn't find' the letter, even though she was in the Senate when that resolution was passed.
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institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel.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?
Hmmm.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:19 PM
2 Comments:
But tell me Carl, how is it possible to not return to 49 Armistice lines yet have a "viable and contiguous Palestinian state?"
Oh yah, and therein lies the rub or better said, the trap! Who set the bait is still denied.
It is completely laughable that anyone could think that two absolutely opposite policy statements, can humanly be implemented.
In the end in order to have a two state solution the armistice lines will have to be changed to link up a contiguous Palestinian state. Period.
If you would take your political blinders off you would see to one degree or another Israel is deceived by both sides.
With those blinders off one can see the real reason why in 8 years Jerusalem was denied by our best friend who wrote a meaningless letter (to temporarily appease Sharon for obvious reasons) knowing that to have a contiguous Palestinian state that freaking letter was not worth the paper it was written on. LONG LIVE THE CARROT AND STICK....(sarc)
Furthermore, the embassy act was not passed even at the expense of a broken campaign promise by our supposed best friend because all along our best friend KNEW in order to link up that "viable and contiguous" state of Palestine (which does not resemble "SWISS CHESSE" Jerusalem is not nor can not ever be the undivided capital of Israel.
I would say the sooner heads rise from the ideological based political sand, the sooner we can fight for real truth.
Believe it. That letter will never be considered "law of the land" and therefore it's supposed relevancy, thrown to the trash.
If you still don't believe it you tell me why all the points he made within that letter as to what he expected from the Palestinians, he, Bush allowed them to get away with? So much so, they are still doing getting away with it.
Oh, and by the way, the phrase which states "Blame Bush because he is to blame for everything" will not make me feel bad that it appears I blame him for everything. The above statement is a childish attempt to keep the blinders on.
I find it remarkable yet unsurprising how people can maintain they love Jerusalem yet not enough to know that following the worst intifada ever, our best friend pushed that train out of the station at mach speed to the point nothing will ever be the same again.
Oh yes, and you can show Hillary hugging that whore of Arafat's till hell freezes over. Hate to tell you , but Hillary never professed to be our best friend...! NEVER not once.
Sorry to say, I see self-hating in a whole new light. Hillary did not deny Jerusalem for she never pledged love and friendship for it to begin with. Nor did her husband who also failed to sign the embassy act.
In the end however all roads lead to the same place paved by friends and foes alike. One, bows, one holds hands. One kisses and one deceives. One blows BS the other smoke and mirrors. Any way you cut it, "We" lose. WE the oldest living recipients of what curses us. Or in more recent decades Why a Palestinian state in the first place knowing what those who promoted it, know about the Palestinian agenda. Which offhandedly leads to the question of, "WHY THE OBSESSION" to begin with.
Post a Comment
<< Home