I have also noticed a dramatic shift in the US administration’s lexicon concerning the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Daniel Pipes, American historian and analyst who specializes in the Middle East, writes in the Front Page Mag about the subtle changes in the direction of US policy vis-a-vis Israel over the last two years.
Pipes: The Palestinian “right of return” entered the lexicon of American policymakers in December 2006, when the Iraq Study Group Report urged the U.S. government to support Israel-Palestinian negotiations that addresses what it termed a “key final status issue.”
That recommendation came as a mild shock, given that the “right of return” to Israel is transparently a code phrase to overwhelm Israel demographically, thereby undoing Zionism and the Jewish state, and so a notion never before a goal of official Washington.
A year later, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino adopted the term, though without much notice. Out of seemingly nowhere, she informed journalists at a press briefing on November 28, 2007 that “The right of return issue is a part of the road map and it’s going to be one of the issues that the Israelis and the Palestinians have to talk about during … negotiations.”
Step by step, inch by inch, the long shadow of James Baker III, one of Israel’s worst detractors, is being cast over the whole Annapolis “peace initiative” debacle. As it was once said, there is no such thing as a “peace process“, it’s a state of being, you either want peace or you don’t.
There is no such process in existence that helps to bring the truly intransigent along the path to a higher place of enlightenment = “oh yeah, right, now I understand, I want it, peace…really!”
Riiiiight. More here. *L* KGS