Friends of Israel?

President Bush may not be the "greatest friend" to Israel as we once thought or hoped.  Daniel Pipes notes that the idea of Palestinian "right of return" has crept into Bush administration discussions of peace negotiations.  Allowing Palestinians who long ago left Israel to come back would lead to a de facto defeat of Israel.   

Pipes writes:

"...right of return" emerged as a motif before and during George W. Bush's recent trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, when he mentioned it three times publicly:

• January 4: In an interview with Israel's Channel 2, Bush announced himself "optimistic that we can have the outlines of a state defined. In other words, negotiations on borders and right of return and these different issues can be settled."

• January 9: At a joint press conference with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, he referred to the core issues of the conflict as "territory and right of return and Jerusalem."

• January 10: In a parallel joint press conference with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, he stated that the two-state idea "really doesn't have much bearing until borders are defined, right of return issues resolved, Jerusalem is understood, … [and] the common security measures will be in place."

In a different setting, also on January 10, Bush, somewhat elusively, stated his belief that "we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue." Is the "right of return" to be one of those new international mechanisms?

...Although Bush is "seen by many Israelis as the best friend the Jewish state has had in the White House," I have long doubted that characterization, and now more so than ever.

Link

On a related note, Andy McCarthy of National Review offers a window into presidential candidate John McCain's views on Israel (and contrasts them to Giuliani's).  An eyeopener:

As I've previously noted, Sen. McCain adheres to the ill-conceived view, long regnant in diplomatic circles, that striking a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians is a top priority of U.S. foreign policy.  (By contrast, the candidate I support, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, argues that Palestinians should not be treated as a civilized negotiating partner until they abandon terrorism and acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.)  Essentially, McCain would continue the disastrous policy currently being pursued by the Bush administration, which (as John Hinderaker recently observed at PowerLine) has now relieved the Palestinians of the "roadmap" prerequisite that they end terrorist attacks against Israel before further negotiations can proceed — such that the President now talks incessantly about his ne plus ultra of Palestinian statehood even as Israeli civilians are targeted by rocket-fire.

Though we've not heard much about them lately, McCain aired some of his views in a 2006 interview with Haaretz, as he was preparing his 2008 presidential bid.  As published at FPM, Jason Maoz of the Jewish Press wrote at the time:

McCain told Haaretz that as president, he would "micromanage" U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians and would dispatch "the smartest guy I know" to the region, presumably to jump-start a new push for a comprehensive accord.Asked who that "smartest guy" might be, McCain responded: "Brent Scowcroft, or James Baker, though I know that you in Israel don’t like Baker."

McCain foresaw "concessions and sacrifices by both sides" and indicated that Israel would be expected to "Defend itself and keep evacuating." Asked whether that meant "movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications," McCain, reported Haaretz, "nodded in the affirmative."

McCain’s statements are jarring not only because they reflect the view, long championed by the State Department and both the moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic party, that the U.S. can somehow "micromanage" a fair and equitable Mideast peace (code for unilateral Israeli concessions, since the Palestinians have nothing concrete to concede), but as well for the almost cavalier dismissal of concerns about an interlocutor on the order of a James Baker.

(McCain’s mention of Scowcroft, whose Mideast views and chilly attitude toward Israel are indistinguishable from those usually attributed to Baker, is equally instructive and should serve as one more caveat for McCain supporters in the pro-Israel community.)

Link

And finally, on the subject of "friends" of Israel:

Israel's True Friends - Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) (Los Angeles Times)

• John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt are at it again, attempting to poison the well of American politics with their misleading depiction of an Israeli stranglehold on presidential candidates and elected officials like us.
• Mearsheimer and Walt accuse all of us who support Israel in its struggle to live in peace and security of being Israel's "false friends." The accusation is remarkably disingenuous since it implies that Walt and Mearsheimer are Israel's true friends.
• What kind of true friends write volumes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gloss over the thousands of rockets Palestinian terror groups in Gaza launch into Israel? What kind of friend refuses to acknowledge the vicious propaganda machine in the West Bank and Gaza that stokes anti-Semitism and glorifies suicide bombers?
• The pro-Israel lobby is not responsible for congressional support for a strong alliance with Israel. Like the vast majority of Americans, we support Israel for a very basic and obvious reason: America is at its best when we align ourselves with allies that share our values of tolerance, freedom and democracy.
• The inescapable truth is that Hamas-led Gaza and heavy pockets of the PA-run West Bank reject a two-state solution. If the PA is powerless to rein in terrorism, and Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel, with whom are the Israelis to broker a peace?

Comments

[soccerdad]

The authors of that op-ed are interesting. Rep. Davis got a lot of Jewish support in his race against McKinney-like Earl Hilliard. It's nice to see that the attention was not in vain.

[draftervoi]

At this point there's little point in negotiations, except to dangle the bait of a two state solution in front of the Palestinian people, as opposed to their leaders. It is to be hoped that at some point they reject the violence of both Hamas and Fatah. The so-called "right of return" is far more complex and has in the past been an intractable negotiating point (with Arafat, for example). A broad generalization might be that some Palestinians have some right to some compensation of some sort, but after that we'd get bogged down in specifics. My ancestors had land "stolen" by the U.S. government, the Austrians, and the English. Oh, and we used to own a bunch of what is now Beverly Hills, but there were issues with the Mexican land grant... We havent' forgotten any of this, but we don't care, either, because we were able to create lives of meaning, substance, and prosperity that make scrounging after the leftovers from a fight that took place before I was born look like a waste of time.

[Batya]

It doesn't matter who's elected. They just follow state department pro-Arab policies, and they get so mired in the "office," they forget the speeches they made to Jewish groups.