[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.



[/ QUOTE ]

It has not been a Bush priority, with other priorities he has tended to leave Israel to her own devices. However, if YOU read the report, it even couches its recommendations in terms of "Bush's commitment to a two-state solution" in both commentary and recommendations. Hardly a repudiation of Bush's policies.

Not even a good try, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. They say that a "renewed and sustained commitment" is necessary on all fronts, including "President Bush's 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

They are saying what everybody who has followed US policy toward Israel remotely closely in the last five years knows: That Bush made a verbal commitment to being involved in pushing for a solution and then backed off and adopted a completely laissez-faire approach. And then they are critiquing that approach. Referencing Bush's "commitment" in this context is a nice way of saying that he dropped the ball.

Then of course they go on to offer a serious of recommendations concerning how to achieve that solution that have been opposed, at least tacitly, by the administration. Yet you still don't think its a critique?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a critique of tactics and timing, not a critique of strategy. Bush made it very clear in the 2002 policy statement that a prerequisite for meaningful discussions was a repudiation of terror and a change in Palestinian leadership. the tactics have been laissez-faire because those things havent happened, and he's had some minor distractions in the ME like Afghanistan and Iraq.

There will be a "renewed and sustained commitment" when the time is appropriate. The recommendation says "as soon as possible"...as more open ended time line than Bush's:

"The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine. " That puts "as soon as possible" in the hands of the Palestinians, and is the correct timeline, imo.

There is no inconsistency between the report and Bush's strategies, other than inclusion of Syria and Iran, which, under current circumstances is a mistake that I dont think GWB will make.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ridiculous semantics. The "as soon as possible" in the report pretty clearly means just that. They aren't putting any conditions on the "possible" part, as far as I can tell. Where is that quote from? I don't see it in the report.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recommendation 14.

And even if you want to claim its just semantics, here is one thing that clearly isnt semantics. The committee has always been promoted, and has been very careful to present itself, as "bi-partisan". Yet in the recommendations on Israel they persistently use the language "President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state....". If they were talking about a more general two-state solution, without the conditions GWB set in June 2002, they would have worded it very differently.