Israel News | Zionism Israel Center | Zionism History | Zionism Definitions | ZioNation | Forum | Zionism FAQ | Maps| Edit

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

INSS: No "Jewish State," No Settlement Blocs:"The King David Statement" and Bush's Developing Position


INSS: No "Jewish State," No Settlement Blocs:"The King David Statement" and Bush's Developing Position


Aluf Benn



During his visit to Israel this month, President George W. Bush laid out his updated approach to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.  In a statement delivered at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Bush fleshed out his vision of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," on the eve of negotiations over "core issues" between delegations of the two parties.


The declaration basically adheres to the lines demarcated by Bush in his "vision speech" of June 2002, but a closer look at the details reveals some development and changes in his positions in comparison with previous "vision" documents: the Aqaba Conference speech of June 2003, the letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of April 2004, and the Annapolis Conference speech on November 2007.

A review of these changes suggests that they reflect an American effort to present a more balanced position by opening up some distance from previous positions that were viewed by some as biased in favor of Israel, particularly by eliminating the expression "Jewish state," the implied reference to settlement blocs and the reservations about settling Palestinian refugees in Israel (all of which appeared in the letter to Sharon), and also by defining the point of departure for negotiations as "the end of the occupation that began in 1967" rather than UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.  Nevertheless, Bush left considerable room for maneuver that will allow give-and-take between the two sides in discussions on the three core issues – border, refugees and Jerusalem.


"Jewish State"

The question of Israel's character and identity came onto the political agenda following the breakdown of the peace process at end of President Bill Clinton's term of office and Israel's fears about Palestinian demands to implement the "right of return."  In his plan to end the conflict – the so-called "parameters" – Clinton spoke of "Palestine as the national home of the Palestinian people and the State of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people."  During Bush's presidency, Israel demanded American recognition as the "Jewish state."  The administration agreed and that position was first enunciated in Secretary of State Colin Powell's "Louisville speech" in November 2001.  President Bush himself declared America's commitment to Israel as a Jewish state in Aqaba, in his letter to Sharon, and at Annapolis.

However, in his King David statement, Bush reverted to the older Clinton formula and spoke only of a "national home."  The American commitment to Israeli security was separated and pronounced in another context.  That change apparently stems from the vigorous opposition of Palestinians and Arab states to recognition of a "Jewish state" after Israel raised the matter in the weeks leading up to the Annapolis Conference.  On the eve of his departure to Annapolis, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that "the point of departure for any negotiations with the Palestinians will be recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people."  Olmert also said that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas and Salem Fayyad, "want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state."  The Palestinian rejection of the concept of "Jewish state" seems to be grounded in two concerns: the implicit renunciation of the "right of return" and the future status of Israeli Arabs.



In his 2004 letter to Sharon, Bush spelled out more detailed principles for an "agreed, just, fair and realistic" resolution of the refugee problem, which, in his view, needed to found through the creation of a Palestinian state and "the settlement of refugees there, and not in Israel."  But in an interview to Israel's Channel 2 Television before his departure to the region as well as in a press conference at the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem, Bush spoke of the "right of return" as one of the core issues.  In so doing, he adopted Palestinian terminology for the refugee issue that raises strong objections in Israel.  In the King David declaration, Bush contented himself with a more ambiguous formula: "We have to look forward to the creation of a Palestinian state and of new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue."



In the King David statement, Bush repeated the position, first expounded in his 2004 letter to Sharon, according to which the border ought to be based on the 1949 Armistice Lines "with agreement modifications that will reflect the current realities."  However, he deleted the section in the letter that specifically referred to "existing Israeli population centers" as the embodiment of current realities, left that issue somewhat vague, and simply repeated the insistence that Israel needs to enjoy "recognized, secure and defensible" boundaries and the Palestinian state needs to be "viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent."


Source of Authority

Both the Annapolis Declaration and the King David statement reflect an American effort to stay away from the "sacred" declarations, agreements and concepts of the past.  These latest proclamations, for example, make no reference to Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 or to the Oslo Agreements, which all appeared in every previous political document (e.g., the Bush speech of 2002, the Roadmap, and the letter to Sharon).  On the other hand, Bush did stipulate this time that "the point of departure for negotiations on a permanent status agreement is clear – ending the occupation that began in 1967."  In doing so, he went beyond previous references to "the end of occupation," either as a step that will contribute to Israel's future wellbeing (as in the 2002 speech) or as one of the objectives of the process (as in the Roadmap).



In the King David statement, Bush referred to Jerusalem for the first time in his presidency but refrained from presenting a clear position and simply acknowledged that the political and religious concerns of both sides will make the discussions very difficult.  He probably did that to avoid a confrontation with American Jewish organizations that made their rejection of the division of Jerusalem their primary reason for opposing the Annapolis process.  Unlike his predecessor, Bush therefore did not elaborate a detailed plan or even stipulate general principles for the resolution of the Jerusalem issue.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors. Originally posted at Please do link to these articles, quote from them and forward them by email to friends with this notice. Other uses require written permission of the author.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Subscribe to
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by

Feedblitz subcription
To this Blog only

You can receive our articles by e-mail. For a free subscription, please enter your e-mail address:

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Web Logs & Sites

This Site

Zionism & Israel
Zionation Web Log
IMO Web Log (Dutch)

ZI Group
Zionism-Israel Pages
Israël-Palestina.Info (Dutch & English)
Israël in de Media
MidEastWeb Middle East News and Views
MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log

Brave Zionism
Israel: Like this, as if
Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog

Friends and Partners
EinNews Israel
Israel Facts
Israel Proud Adam Holland
Middle East Analysis
Irene Lancaster's Diary
Middle East Analysis
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israel Facts (NL)
Cynthia's Israel Adventure
Jeff Weintraub Commentaries and controversies
Meretz USA Weblog
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
Simply Jews
Fresno Zionism
Anti-Racist Blog
Sharona's Week
Z-Word Blog
Jewish State
Take A Pen - Israel Advocacy
Zionism on the Web
ZOTW's Zionism and Israel News
Zionism On The Web News
ZOTW's Blogs
Christian Attitudes
Dr Ginosar Recalls
Questions: Zionism anti-Zionism Israel & Palestine
Southern Wolf
Peace With Realism
Sanda's Place
Liberal for Israel
Realistic Dove
Blue Truth
Point of no Return
Christians Standing With Israel
Christians Standing With Israel - Blog

Encylopedic Dictionary of Zionism and Israel
Middle East Encyclopedia
Zionism and its Impact
Zionism & the creation of Israel
Zionism - Issues & answers
Maps of Israel
Christian Zionism Resources
Christian Zionism
Albert Einstein
Gaza & the Qassam Victims of Sderot
Zionist Quotes
Six Day War
Jew Hatred
Learn Hebrew
Arab-Israeli Conflict
International Zionism

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Israel Boycott
Boycott Israel?
Amnesty International Report on Gaza War
Boycott Israel?
Dutch Newspaper Reporting: A Study of NRC Handelsblad
Hamas (Dutch)
Dries van Agt (Dutch)
Isfake lobby

At Zionism On the Web
Articles on Zionism
Anti-Zionism Information Center
Academic boycott of Israel Resource Center
The anti-Israel Hackers
Antisemitism Information Center
Zionism Israel and Apartheid
Middle East, Peace and War
The Palestine state
ZOTW Expert Search
ZOTW Forum

Judaica & Israel Gifts
Jewish Gifts: Judaica:
Ahava Products

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

RSS V 1.0

International Affairs Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory