« Ron Paul Issues Statement | Main | Hey Frank, is that you? »
January 11, 2008
JPost Switcheroo - What did Bush Say about the Right of Return?
The Jerusalem Post has materially altered an article on President Bush's visit to Israel yesterday to remove a statement by President Bush that appears to be in support of the palestinian right of return, changing the article so radically that it now that President Bush said the direct opposite of what the original article reported.
On January 9, 2008, the Jerusalem Post published an article about President Bush's comments during his visit. I first saw it at Theodore's World, and it said:
Visiting US President George Bush called on Israel to remove "illegal outposts" in the West Bank, saying that "they simply ought to go" during an evening press conference shared by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday.
At the same time Bush called for all issues to be addressed during negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - including the Palestinian 'right of return.'
The article was linked on the interent, I found discussions about it posted on other websites besides Theodore's World. Mere Rhetoric posted about it here and I found the same article on Free Republic.
My first thought was "what fresh hell is this?" Did Bush really say that the right of return has to be negotiated? Can that possibly be true?
Bush has never pushed this issue before, and in fact, he has supported the opposite. In April of 2004, Bush outraged the entire arab world when he backed Israel’s declaration that Palestinian refugees have no right of return. That declaration came at a critical time in Israel's history, as Sharon was preparing for the expulsion of Jews from Gaza as a "good faith" gesture for peace. At that time, not only did Bush denounce the "right of return," Bush stated he believed the Israelis in Judea and Samaria should stay where they are.
Today, George Bush wants to see those same Israelis thrown out of Judea and Samaria. Today, Bush has changed his mind on that issue, he now wants Judea and Samaria to be Jew-free, but is he also now backing the right of return? It cannot be disputed that President Bush has done a tremendous amount of harm to Israel with his "road map," perhaps more harm than any previous American President, but President Bush has never before backed the right of return.
But then, never means "up till now," doesn't it? And it would appear from the original JPost article that George Bush has changed his mind, not only about a Judenrein Judea and Samaria, but also on the right of return.
And now, the article has been changed to reflect a completely different view of the issue:
"Upon his arrival at Ben-Gurion Airport, Bush said that the US's alliance with Israel helps "guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state." This is widely considered code for a rejection of the Palestinian claim of the "right of return." Bush made no mention of this at the press conference."
At some point yesterday, January 10, 2008, almost 24 hours after the article was originally published, the quotes concerning Bush's comments about the right of return vanished without a trace, and without an explanation. Instead of issuing a correction or clarification, JPost just deleted it. Why?
The early commentary on the JPost article showed quite a bit of outrage:
17. BushThere is no "Right of return". Therefore, only resettlement and/or compensation is to be discussed.
yudl - (01/09/2008 22:15)22. THE FIX IS IN !The fix is in. The agreement is that Omertwill say that the arabs will give in on the right of return, and in order to avoid having a a few million arabs return, he will have no choice but to give in on Jerusalem. After all, he's only trying to save Israel for the Jews. What a load of baloney. He's trying to save himself.
Bubba - (01/09/2008 22:31)25. Right Of Return - Kibbosh!The "right of return" huh? If that's really on the table, there is nothing to talk about. Unless Israel wants to sign its death warrant.
29. right of return and two statesI agree with the many posters past and present that there already exist two states and a new "2nd" one is redundant. Disregarding that for the moment though, if there has to be another "Palestinian " state, why on earth do we need to discuss the right of return? This seems to mean, carve up Israel a bit more and then flood what's left with masses of "Palestinians". I O W why do you need both a new state as well as the right to return to Israel? the answer to that rhetorical question is obvious, is it not?
norman a blumberg - USA (01/09/2008 23:2233. Surprise! Bush just voided his own committment letter of 2004 to SharonThat letter made clear that any Palestinian "right of return" would only be to a Palestinian state, and that any territorial settlement must take into account the demographic changes on the ground. The suggestion that the right of return be "addressed" during negotiations effectively negates his own commitments. Any push to move to the borders of 1967 would similarly show that this President's words mean nothing. And, really, his first question to Abbas should deal with incitement, not rockets.
Raymond from DC - USA (01/09/2008 23:42)34. The Right of Return is a Non-Starter!The Palestinian "right of r eturn" cannot be implemented - not because it will be the end of the Jewish State (through peaceful assimilation- but because the lunatic moslems will simply create death and destruction once they are on the territory of the Zionist entity!
philip freed - USA (01/09/2008 23:42)38. Says x and means yHow about right of return for all the American Indians. How about a roadmap for a black African state. How about making painful concession of cancilling out sale of smart bombs for 30 billion bucks to the Saudis in a few days or freeing pollard. How about if your country was in similar predicament as Israel's, you would tear up roadmap to bits, remember Cuba 90 miles away what if they were 2 miles away like Palestine to Israel. Who's kidding who.
Truth Puller - (01/09/2008 23:5442. A 'Right of Return'implies a 'past'. A past that is documented in history. A past as a nation perhaps. I rather wonder what 'PAST' is being referred to when one 'discusses' a Palestinian Right to Return. Seems that the definition is much like Clinton's definition of sex.
Morton Friedman - USA (01/10/2008 00:15)48. Right of return = death to the Jewish StateBush is 100% insane to go to Israel and tell it to commit suicide. Send that evil moron and Rice packing!
Preston - USA (01/10/2008 00:36)50. Right of Return?If Bush is so interested in the right of return, I'd suggest he'd better be careful of what he wishes for. He might not like what he gets. I have relatives who could be interested in their return to their ancestrial homes in Kreis Stolp in Pommerania. I have some old friends out in the Rosebud in South Dakota who would be interested in the return of the Black Hills. And my sons have some Cherokee ancestry, so they might be interested in the return of the Cherokee to Georgia.
Gary Glaser - USA (01/10/2008 00:50)51. Bush's statement (if it was just the following) was just a clumsy bungle.I suppose the "right of return" statement was the following by Bush, in response to a question: "You just heard the man [ i.e. Olmert] talk about their desire to deal with core issues, which I guess for the uneducated on the issue, that means dealing with the issues like territory and right of return and Jerusalem." This would seem to be just a clumsy bungled statement, not a thought-through statement of US principles. It can thus be forgotten as insignificant.
Arnold - Canada (01/10/2008 01:05)54. Land promiseGod promised the land already populated. God promised the land to the people that never lived at the land. Where is beginning? Do Israel have any obligations for $30bn, or it is for free lunch.
Lana - USA (01/10/2008 02:21)55. bush is grasping at straws...israel should never be forced into palistinian "right of return" nor should he be dictating removal of settlements. the arabs will not honor any agreement anyway. bush is stalling to forgo the next major war,but it's coming anyway.
doug - usa (01/10/2008 02:39)78. What Right of Return ?The Right of Return is a request totally out of line, because it was the "Pal"Arabs to begin with, who started the war in 1948 immediately after the state of Israel came into being and the Arab-neighbours told the Arabs in Israel to flee, which they did ! They left believing that they will temporarily stay out of the way of their Arab-brothers determined to annihiliate the Jews. The Arabs born after 1948 outside Israel, have NO right to Israel whatsoever!
Aliza - (01/10/2008 18:33)79. What Right of Return? - 2The Persian Moslems invaded Israel, the Land of the JEWS, where they already had lived 2000 years(!), in 614 AC. These Moslem invadors islamisized the JEWS´ HOMEland in the following 400 years and changed the name of Jerusalem for "El Kuds"! The presence of these Moslem ivadors in Israel has lasted the past 1396 years. NOW they demand a "right of return" to the Land they STOLE, INVADED and OCCUPIED !Aliza - (01/10/2008 18:40)
That's nearly 22 hours of commentary objecting to the right of return, and then, the commentary changes, with no mention of the right of return at all, presumably after the article itself changed. While it's clear that the article was changed, it's unclear when, or why. If it was a misquote, that's one hell of a misquote. What exactly did Bush say? It seems impossible that such a grave mistake was made in understanding what the President said.
The facts of the "refugee problem" do not support any right of return.
Immediately after the formation of Israel in 1948, they were invaded by five arab states, hell bent on destruction. Their stated goal was to drive the Jews into the sea. The arab armies told the locals to evacuate so they wouldn’t be caught in the crossfire, promising them that later they could return and dance on the graves of dead Jews. It is estimated that roughly 600,000 arabs followed that advice, but, the number is highly disputed. UN estimates have ranged from 360,000 to 950,000. The discrepancy is due to the fact that arabs from every arab country in the MidEast came running to be a "refugee."
At the same time, 800,000 Jews were literally driven out of other arab countries, some from homes their families had known for millennia. They had a choice, stay and be killed by rampaging arabs or emigrate to Israel.
There is no right of return and there are no "refugees." It's called mass migration, generally caused by war, revolution or politics. Traditionally, those migrants are absorbed by other countries. At the end of World War II, there were Hindus and Moslems who ended up in India or Pakistan respectively, there were Greeks and Armenians who fled from Turkey, Holocaust survivors weren’t permitted to return to their homes in Eastern Europe, and there were plenty of French settlers who forced out of Algeria at the time of its independence.
These so-called "refugees" have not been allowed to settle in the "indivisible Arab nation." They have been supported in camps since 1948, receiving hundreds of millions, billions of dollars over the years.. and while the arabs throughout the Middle East cry crocodile tears for their poor suffering palestinian brothers and sisters, none of the 24 arab countries has opened their arms to embrace them as new citizens. Instead, these refugees and their descendants, were dumped into camps of poverty and degradation for the world to see, further fanning the flames of hatred. Bottom line is that these arabs are not now, and never were, the problem or responsibility of Israel.
The facts of the "refugee problem" do not support any right of return, not for the so-called palestinian refugees and not for the Jews expelled from arab countries at the same time. You see, no matter the circumstances, it really boils down to a population exchange. Israel absorbed the Jews expelled from arab countries, those arab countries should absorb the arabs who fled from Israel.If there were 600,000 arabs, well, there were 800,000 Jews. To even things up and make it really fair, Israel should be able to expel another 200,000 arabs.
The number of so called refugees is still disputed, but are said to now number between 4 and 6 million and that number would more than double if the right of return is ever given to the arabs. Israel would be overwhelmed and overcome by arab hordes rushing triumphantly into Israel, crying out their victory, Chrad al Yahood - Kill the Jews. Israel would cease to exist, and in its place, there would be just another arab country. Let there be no mistake, to support the right of return is to support the destruction of the State of Israel.
Yahoo had an article that highlighted the new elements to Bush's peace plan for the Middle East which said the direct opposite to the JPost article quoted above:
One new element was the suggestion that the international community should help compensate Palestinians and their descendants who claim a right to return to land they held before Israel's formation.
That doesn't sound like Bush is backing the right of return to me, but he's changed his mind before, has he changed it again? Did the JPost make it up? Or did they get with the program?
I've written the author of the article, Herb Keinon, and asked for an explanation. That was over 12 hours ago and I've not yet received a reply. I don't expect to.
Posted by LindaSoG at January 11, 2008 10:00 AM
Comments
Thank you Linda for all the work you did on this. I will do an update and link back to you as well.
Posted by: Wild Thing at January 11, 2008 11:40 AM
It's all crap.
Bush is just trying to get a photo of himself, an israeli, and a pali signing a piece of paper ... something to put up in the Bush Mk.2 presidential library.
Everyone involved knows this will mean nothing and have little or no effect.
Everyone is spinning the snot out of this in order to look good afterwards.
Posted by: Kristopher at January 11, 2008 02:06 PM
Good catch, M'Lady.
I can just see the little guy from Orwell's 1984 rewriting the Newspeak copy....
(wrings hands, looks over shoulder), "Oh no, we Can't have this! Puts the POTUS in a bad light. Have to reinvent the "Facts"...heh, heh, they're "only" facts...."
This is an abomination either way the coin lands. Either POTUS said those words....and the JPost changed the "facts", (which just confirms him a two-faced weasel), or he was misquoted....JPost has to own up to the mistake.
Bravo Sierra no matter which way it turns out.
And don't get me started on "right of return", Jerusalem being split, settlements, and "refugee" monies.......Really, don't.
Semi-lapsed Catholic,
Wollf
Posted by: howlsatmoon at January 11, 2008 02:10 PM
I wonder why this is the first I'm hearing about this, that was a good catch. Jpost was counting on no one paying attention and its looks like for the most part they were right, no one is paying attention. We should though, because it matters when they twist things and hide things from us. Thank you Linda.
Posted by: Lorena at January 13, 2008 08:59 AM
off the White House website
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080109-4.html
"If you're asking me, am I nudging them forward -- well, my trip was a pretty significant nudge, because yesterday they had a meeting -- and by the way, the atmosphere in America was, nothing is going to happen, see, that these issues are too big on the ground; therefore, you two can't get together and come up with any agreements. You just heard the man talk about their desire to deal with core issues, which I guess for the uneducated on the issue, that means dealing with the issues like territory and right of return and Jerusalem. Those are tough issues -- the issue of Israeli security. And they're going to sit down at the table and discuss those issues in seriousness."
Posted by: Sultan Knish at January 13, 2008 09:01 PM
See my posting here about the media's attempt to cover up Bush's reference to the "right of return", and the Jerusalem Post's bizarre denial that Bush ever said it:
Posted by: Lurker at January 14, 2008 01:47 AM