Baker is calling for a Right of Return. This will change Israel from a Jewish state to an Arab State--in so many words he is calling for the destruction of Israel !
Baker panel's mention of Palestinian "right of return" raises eyebrowsOf Course it was deliberate. Baker Hates Israel, now he is calling for its destruction.
Breitbart.com Hats off to LGF
Dec 06 3:43 PM US/Eastern
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.
Carl From Israel Maztav Reports that Baker is also calling for an international Mid East peace conference WITHOUT ISRAEL. So a solution can be worked out and Shoved Down Israel's throat.
Peace for our time?Baker uses the Jewish lobby stereotype Crap
Insight Magazine is reporting that one of the proposals made by the Iraq Study Group, led by James "F**k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker, is to hold a Madrid-type conference over the future of Israel, to which Israel would not be invited:
The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.
The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.
“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”Two weeks ago, I finished a post with this but let me suggest that it bears repeating:
Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.
“Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”
Not everyone is against us though:
In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.
“The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. “If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region.”
But the new Secretary of Defense is against us:
But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.
“Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations,” Mr. Gates said. “Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference.”
For those who need a history lesson, allow me to remind you what happened at the Munich 'Conference.'
The Munich Agreement (Czech: Mnichovská zrada; German: Münchner Abkommen) was an agreement regarding the Sudetenland Crisis between the major powers of Europe after a conference held in Munich, Germany in 1938 and signed on September 29.
The Sudetenland was an area of Czechoslovakia where ethnic Germans formed a majority of the population. The Sudetenland was of immense strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, as most of its border defenses were situated there, along with a huge armament facility, the Škoda Works. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia, and it ended up surrendering much of that state to Nazi Germany. It is considered by many as a major example of appeasement. Because Czechoslovakia was not invited to the conference, the Munich Agreement is commonly called the Munich Dictate by Czechs and Slovaks. The phrase Munich betrayal is also frequently used, especially because of military alliances between Czechoslovakia and France and between France and Britain, that were not taken into account.
Because Adolf Hitler soon violated the terms of the agreement, it has often been cited in support of the principle that tyrants should never be appeased. Others, however, believe that starting World War II over the German-majority Sudetenland would have been foolhardy, akin to starting World War I over competing claims to part of Serbia.
Like a lot of parents I often go into my children’s room to watch them sleep. These days when I look at my kids sleeping in their beds’ looking so innocent I worry that across the world innocent Jewish children are being de-humanized. How the radical thieves who have stolen and now control Islam are teaching their children to kill my children. I think about the European and American press portraying Jews using old horrible stereotypes, I see anti-Semitism growing on US Campuses. And just like 70 years ago I see much of the world refusing to acknowledge the scope of the problem or act to prevent it.
A friend once told me that all Jewish holidays are based on the same premise, "they tried to kill us ---we won---lets eat!" It is partially true, some very joyous holidays fit into that category such as Purim and Chanukah. Then there are the others based on a totally different idea: they tried to kill us THEY won, and few of us survived by the grace of G-d. You know, holidays such as Tisha B’Av and Yom HaShoah. Call me an alarmist but I am scared! Every time I open a newspaper or turn on the TV is becoming increasingly clear to me that we may be facing the early stages of one of those "They tried to kill us" periods.
Anti-Jewish acts and statements across the world are increasing exponentially. Now Baker is trying to push the US toward the destruction of Israel. And we haven’t seen the worst of it. One day those children, who are having daily hatred lessons in Muslim schools or American College Campuses, will be adults and after they eliminate the Jews in Israel they will be going after my kids and yours
One thousand years from now, if there is a Jewish Holiday commemorating the early twenty first century what kind will it be; the kind that ends with "lets eat" or the kind that ends with lets cry, or worse will there be no Jews around to have a holiday
1 comment:
Just as much as Israel should not have anything to do with ther Iraq mess, so to the Iraq Study group findings (to which all bipartisan members agree to all 72 recocmendations) have nothing to do with the Democratic victory.
(nor nonexistent the "shift in us policy")
Democrat senator Joe Biden was the first to say just yesterday that the idea that israel should have anytrhing to do with fixing the iraq mess is ludicrous.
Post a Comment