NY Times worries Israel will make peace with Saudi Arabia and leave the 'Palestinians' in the cold
In an editorial in Sunday's editions, the New York Times worries that Israel will make peace with Saudi Arabia (and Egypt, with which we made peace nearly 40 years ago) and
leave the 'Palestinians' out in the cold.
The Israelis and the Saudis
have reasons to work together. They share antipathy toward Iran, the leading
Shiite-majority country. Both are worried about regional instability. Both are
upset with the United States over the Iranian nuclear deal and other policies,
including those dealing with Syria. For some time, Israeli and Saudi officials
have been cooperating covertly on security and intelligence matters.
...
It’s hard to tell sometimes
whether and through whom the Saudi royal family is speaking, and some analysts
do not view General Eshki as a serious interlocutor. But his visit to Jerusalem, which included a meeting with members of Parliament,
suggested a new Saudi openness to testing how the public in both countries would
react to overt contacts.
Significantly, Saudi Arabia has also begun a media
campaign in the kingdom, apparently to prepare its citizens for better relations
with Israel.
In recent years, Israelis
and Saudis have encountered each other often at academic and policy forums. In
addition, Israel has established separate official channels of communication
with Saudi Arabia, as well as with the United Arab Emirates, and these channels
are considered “real and significant,” according to Daniel Levy, president of
the U.S./Middle East Project.
Egypt
has also been pursuing warmer ties with Israel. A week before the Saudi
delegation arrived, Sameh Shoukry became the first foreign minister of Egypt
to visit Israel
in nine years. Although the two countries signed a peace treaty in 1979, the
relationship never fulfilled its promise. However, ties have improved since
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became Egypt’s president in 2014, enabling greater security
cooperation against Hamas in Gaza and the militants battling Egyptian troops in
the Sinai.
Where does this leave the
Palestinians? Both the Saudi and Egyptian visits were ostensibly aimed at
promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, who have relied on the
Sunni Arab states to advance their interests. General Eshki, for instance,
talked of reviving the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which promised Israel
normalized relations with the Arab League countries as part of a deal to end the
Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately, neither the
Israelis nor the Palestinians show interest in serious peace talks. And there
are reasons to doubt that the Palestinians are the Arab countries’ real focus.
Mr. Netanyahu, in fact, has made clear his preference for improving relations
with the Arab states first, saying Israel would then be in a stronger position
to make peace with the Palestinians later on.
Of course, improved
relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors do not preclude a Palestinian
peace deal. The danger is that these countries will find more value in mending
ties with each other and stop there, thus allowing Palestinian grievances, a
source of regional tension for decades, to continue to fester.
There's no danger there. The 'Palestinians' are an invention of the Arab states anyway.
In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians':
- The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab
unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical
reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people,
since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a
distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
- For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
It's long past time to acknowledge reality: There aren't going to be two states - a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of 'Palestine' living side-by-side in peace - unless the Arab state is the one known today as Jordan. The 'Palestinian grievances' can never be satisfied, and even the Arab states recognize today that they have more important things to do with Israel than try to dismember it by creating a 'right of return' for 'Palestinian refugees' who are non-citizens in weaker Arab countries like Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. There will be no 'right of return.'
The 'Palestinians' who live within Israel (including Judea and Samaria) will either learn to accept reality and economic and political conditions in the State of Israel that are far better than those anywhere in the Arab world outside of the royal families of the Gulf, or they will leave for Western countries that are willing to have them (Frau Merkel?). And Israel will eventually have relations with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and maybe even Qatar (which today is Hamas' biggest supporter) because economic realities dictate that those relationships will happen.
And the New York Times will go off crying into the sunset. Speedily and in our times.
Labels: our friends the Saudis, Palestinian state, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, two-state solution, United Arab Emirates
No, Saudi King Salman did not finance Netanyahu's campaign
A story in the Middle East Observer, allegedly based on the Panama Papers, has gained a lot of traction for its claim that Saudi King
Salman donated $80 million to Prime Minister Netanyahu's 2015 election campaign.
Isaac Herzog, member of the Knesset and
Chairman of the Israeli Labor party, revealed that Saudi king Salman
bin Abdulaziz financed the election campaign of Israeli Prime Minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu.
“In March 2015, King Salman has
deposited eighty million dollars to support Netanyahu’s campaign via a
Syrian-Spanish person named Mohamed Eyad Kayali. The money was deposited
to a company’s account in British Virgin Islands owned by Teddy Sagi,
an Israeli billionaire and businessman, who has allocated the money to
fund the campaign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”, Herzog
cited a leaked Panama Paper.
The story is still being shared on social media:
But according to sources that seem to be in a decent position to know,
the story is not true.
(Update): A spokesperson from Isaac Herzog’s office reached out to Al-Masdar News on Monday to confirm that this quote was fabricated.
And there goes President Obama's foreign policy legacy.... /sigh
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Knesset elections 2015, our friends the Saudis, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Yitzchak Herzog
Obama gives the Saudis the Israel treatment
In the aftermath of the Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia's embassies, Lee Smith writes that the Obama administration has
given the Saudis contemptuous treatment that has only been matched by Obama's treatment of one other ally: Israel.
President Obama has said that the United States shouldn't take part in a
sectarian war. White House officials have let on that it's wisest for
the United States to stand aside while extremists from both sects kill
each other off. But the administration has effectively sided across the
region with Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and Iranian-backed
Shiite militias in Iraq, and even the Revolutionary Guard Corps itself,
providing air cover for the operations of Quds Force chief Qassem
Suleimani in Iraq. John Kerry has finally admitted that the
administration has no interest in toppling dictator Bashar al-Assad,
Iran's ally in Damascus. As Obama has explained, the White House
acknowledges Iranian interests in Syria — which happen to include
shipping missiles to Hezbollah to point at Israel.
With the Nimr affair, the Obama administration again showed its
preference for Iran. After the Saudi embassy and consulate were torched,
the first statement the State Department released made no mention of
the attacks but questioned the wisdom of executing Nimr. Officials were
eager to put distance between the United States and the Saudis, claiming
the administration had tried to dissuade Riyadh but to no avail.
Why was the White House effectively
backing Iran's position, a self-arrogated "right" to have a say in the
fate of a citizen of another country? After all, Iranian foreign
minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tells Kerry that the fate of
Iranian-American Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian is none of America's business since he's an Iranian national.
"Shortly after they started getting
questions about the incident, the administration began furiously
briefing reporters against the Saudis," says Omri Ceren, an analyst with
the Israel Project. "It's difficult to think of any other country, with
the obvious exception of Israel, that's ever received that kind of
treatment from the White House's communications team." Large parts of
the American press and foreign policy community took their cue from the
White House and went on the offensive against Saudi Arabia. The
fundamental theme was that Americans share many values with Iran, but
not with the Saudis. This, though neither Riyadh nor Washington are in
the habit of directing their citizens to attack embassies.
Saudi Arabia is an often trying U.S.
ally, unfree, a violator of human rights, with private citizens who back
terrorism. But for the last decade, Saudi Arabia has been a partner in
the war on terror. Most of the 46 others executed with Nimr were Sunni
Islamists, including al Qaeda members. "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef
has an impeccable record in fighting Islamists," says Hussain
Abdul-Hussain, Washington bureau chief of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai. "Now Saudi has its Islamists on the run and sees Iran as the main threat they have to deal with."
Abdul-Hussain says that this new policy
focus is also partly due to the difference between the former king,
Abdullah, and the current ruler, Salman. "Abdullah didn't want to get
involved in regional politics. But with Salman, the White House has
asked the Saudis to do so many things and carry the ball on their own —
whether it's Syria, Yemen, or to stand up to Iran. But now the
administration is saying they don't like it that way. If you're Saudi,
it seems that no matter what you do, the Americans won't like it."
What's especially peculiar about the
White House's attitude, says Abdul-Hussain, is that the Saudis are a
status quo power that, in its foreign policy, essentially plays by
Western rules. "They believe in the nation-state. For instance, they
gave the Lebanese Army billions of dollars to buy weapons from France in
order to buttress a national institution. The Iranians are a militia
state that supports militias around the region. In Iran, the supreme
leader is more powerful than the president, the IRGC is stronger than
the army."
Exporting the Islamic Revolution means
replicating that system elsewhere. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is stronger
than the army. Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, makes foreign
policy, not the Lebanese prime minister. "Iran is doing the same in
Iraq," says Abdul-Hussain, "where they back the popular militias, which
are stronger than the central government in Baghdad."
It's hardly a surprise that the regime
in Tehran continues to violate international laws and norms, laying
siege to diplomatic missions and testing ballistic missiles in violation
of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The revolution has always aimed
to overthrow the existing order of the region and the rest of the world.
What's striking is not just that the White House has turned on so many
American regional partners, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, or that it's
undone an American system that took 70 years to build, but that it so
often ends up taking Iran's side.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, Iranian nuclear threat, Obama's obsession with engaging Iran, our friends the Saudis, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud
It starts: Saudi Arabia to buy nuke from Pakistan
Greetings from Boston.
You didn't really think that Saudi King Salman was going to trust
his country's security to the moron on Pennsylvania Avenue, did you? A report in the Sunday Times of London says that Saudi Arabia is going to be
purchasing a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.
Saudi Arabia had made the “strategic decision” to purchase a nuclear
weapon from Pakistan amid the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
program, a former American defense official said in a report published today in The Sunday Times.
“There has been a longstanding agreement in place with
the Pakistanis and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision
to move forward.”
While the official did not believe “any actual weaponry has been
transferred yet”, it was clear “the Saudis mean what they say and they
will do what they say”, following last month’s Iranian outline nuclear
deal. …
Asked whether the Saudis had decided to become a nuclear power, the official responded: “That has to be the assumption.”
The assessment is shared by an American intelligence official who spoke to the Times,
saying that “hundreds” of CIA employees are trying to determine if
Pakistan has already supplied any nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
Let's hear it for Mr. 'Nuclear Non-Proliferation.' Change, indeed. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear proliferation, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud
As if a 'written commitment' from the US is worth the paper
It's a travel day today, so greetings from the @BritishAirways lounge at London Heathrow.
We've already seen that the Kings of
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have announced that they are not coming to President Obama's 'Gulf summit' in Camp David on Thursday.
Now, there's a new crisis. It seems that the President of the United States has made America's word worthless. The Gulf leaders want
guarantees in writing.
As if that would make a difference.
This is from the next to last link.
If anyone was still confused about the aims of the Saudis and their
allies, they’re making it quite explicit. “Persian Gulf leaders, set to
convene at a Camp David summit this week, are pressing President Obama
to strengthen the U.S. security relationship with the region and expand
military assurances to address their growing concerns about Iran, U.S.
and regional officials said,” The Washington Post revealed on Tuesday.
Senior officials from several gulf nations said they
understand that a mutual defense alliance, similar to NATO, is not
possible. At the very least, however, they want a firmer and more
specific U.S. promise to protect them from external threats.
“In the past we have survived with a gentlemen’s agreement with the
United States about security,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, ambassador to
Washington for the United Arab Emirates, one of the six Gulf Cooperation
Council countries participating in the summit. “Today, we need
something in writing. We need something institutionalized.”
The concerns of the Arab states are perfectly valid. The Obama
administration has demonstrated clearly over the course of its tenure
that they have no regard for America’s historic alliances, the United
States’ long-term interests, or any discernable grand strategy.
America’s word is no longer good. “Today, we need something in writing.”
The Gulf Arab states already sought a mutual defense pact with the
United States that was rejected by this White House several weeks ago.
In the absence of American security guarantees, the Gulf states will
provide for their own defense.
In case you missed it, the key sentences there are "The Obama
administration has demonstrated clearly over the course of its tenure
that they have no regard for America’s historic alliances, the United
States’ long-term interests, or any discernable grand strategy.
America’s word is no longer good." That's been true
since the beginning of this administration. It took just a few months after Obama took power.
Will a new administration in Washington return to its traditional allies and demonstrate loyalty and reliability? Twenty months may be too long to wait to find out.
Can the Gulf states defend themselves? That's part of the problem. They have the equipment and they can certainly afford to buy more. But their armies and their operational capabilities
leave a lot to be desired.
Labels: Bahrain, Barack Hussein Obama, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, United Arab Emirates
King of Bahrain will also skip Obama's Camp David summit
Remember when Obama was going to 'fix' American relations with the Arab world?
What could go wrong?
Labels: Bahrain, Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud
Saudi King Salman to snub Obama
Saudi King Salman may snub President Hussein Obama by not attending the Gulf State's summit that Obama is holding at Camp David this week.
Even before the announcement, Arab media was
panning the upcoming summit.
What can be seen as positive is that Obama decided to address these
concerns and objections at Camp David before any deal is signed with
Iran, in order for Arab Gulf leaders to pose questions about the nature
of the mysterious agreement and its potential repercussions on their
nations. There is also a perception among them that the Camp David
summit is just a marketing tool, from which Obama wants to promote the
deal without making any real commitments or giving any clear answers.
But King Salman, as noted above, isn't planning on coming. Maybe because he doesn't believe he's going to get a
meaningful commitment to defense from Obama.
Publicly, both sides are stressing the need to strengthen the security
cooperation, the common struggle against terrorism, and the imperative
of containing Iran’s destabilizing policies. Ideally, some GCC states
would like to sign binding defense treaties with the United States, but
they know that this is beyond the realm of the possible, given the
strong reluctance of the administration and opposition from Congress to
anything that could conceivably diminish Israel’s qualitative military
edge (QME). Still, some of them will push for a ‘strong, explicit and a
written commitment from the President’, as one official said, that if a
member of the GCC states is attacked by a foreign power, the United
States will come to its defense. But, there is a strong reluctance
within the Obama administration to enter into any long term and legally
binding military commitment in the Gulf region, at a time when the
administration is trying to ‘rebalance’ or ‘pivot’ to Asia, and after
more than six years of setbacks and disillusionments in the region
ranging from the collapsed Palestine-Israel peace efforts, the failed
Libya intervention, the horrendous blunders in Syria, and the unraveling
of the political/security structures that the U.S. had left in Iraq
before its withdrawal. Publicly, U.S. officials say that there are no
plans to reduce America’s high military profile in the Middle East (more
than 35 thousand military personnel), but privately, they say that in
10 to 15 years the U.S. should not have more than few thousand military
advisors, trainers and technicians involved in intelligence gathering
and operating drones.
And while the Arab media place much of the blame for their states' inability to get a commitment to their defense on Israel,
the real reason why Obama won't commit to defending the Gulf States is much simpler.
But even “something in writing” wouldn't address the Persian Gulf
states' biggest problems. Iran isn't going to launch a conventional
military attack; the mullahs in Tehran have never invaded any of their
neighbors.
Instead, the real threats to their stability —
and thus their ability to counter Iran — include their own sluggish
economies; the recruitment of young gulf Arabs by terrorist groups such
as Islamic State; and the spillover effects of nearby wars in Syria,
Iraq and Yemen. Those problems can't be solved with security guarantees,
missile sales or tough statements.
Oh and by the way, what does it mean to say that you'll defend the Gulf countries if Iran attacks them with nuclear weapons? That isn't really going to deter the Iranians, is it?
More
here.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud
In case you didn't notice, it's not just about Israel
Israel is not the only US ally that is concerned about developments in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear capability. In case you
hadn't noticed, the Gulf States are
not exactly jumping for joy either (Hat Tip:
Eli Tabori).
The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with President
Barack Obama
over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may
have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies
across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab
Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that
Benjamin Netanyahu
was offered in Congress.
...
“A lot of the Gulf countries feel they are being thrown under the
bus,” said Mishaal al-Gergawi, managing director of the Delma Institute
in Abu Dhabi and a prominent Emirati political commentator. “The Gulf
thought it was in a monogamous relationship with the West, and now it
realizes it’s being cheated on because the U.S. was in an open
relationship with it.”
Trying to assuage such concerns, Secretary of State
John Kerry
flew Wednesday to Saudi Arabia. There, he is slated to discuss
with King Salman and foreign ministers of other Gulf nations their
worries that the nuclear deal may enable Iran to dominate the region.
...
Even before the revolution, Iran tried to dominate the Gulf, laying
claim to Shiite-majority Bahrain and seizing disputed islands claimed by
the U.A.E.
Taking advantage of the Obama administration’s
attempt to pivot away from the region, Tehran in recent years asserted
its influence in Baghdad and solidified its control in Damascus and
Beirut. Last month, pro-Iranian Houthi Shiite militias seized power in
Yemen’s capital San’a and ousted that country’s U.S.-backed president.
The
Sunni Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia that are engaged in proxy
conflicts with Tehran in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Lebanon view this
confrontation as an existential zero-sum game—and interpret any American
opening to Iran, and any relaxation of the economic sanctions that have
hobbled Iran’s ability to project power, as succor to the enemy.
“Some
of these countries are more worried about the consequences of the deal,
about how it will change the balance of power in the region, rather
than the actual contents of the deal,” explained
Ali Vaez,
Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. These
fears are overblown, he said: “The reality is that the U.S. may have a
tactical overlap in its interests in the region with Iran, but
strategically it sees the region in a very different way.”
That
may be true, but this tactical overlap has already created strategic
consequences in the crucial battlefields of Syria and Iraq, cementing
Iran’s sway in both nations.
Read the whole thing. Will the Gulf States decide that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Free Syrian Army, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Islamic State, John Kerry, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Shiites v. Sunnis, Syria
Obama going to Saudi Arabia, will skip Auschwitz liberation anniversary
Having
blown off France two weeks ago, Barack
HUSSEIN Obama will
skip the Taj Mahal next week to
visit the new king of Saudi Arabia. In case that doesn't make his priorities clear enough, the President of the United States will then
skip the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
This is from the third link.
World leaders have been streaming into the country to pay their
respects to the powerful kingdom, which controls one of the world's
largest reserves of oil. The late King Abdullah had been a close friend
of the United States, but the new king, Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud is
less known in the West.
The president has been on a bad streak of late. He skipped the Paris
march after the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, instead
watching NFL playoof football. The White House later acknowledged that
it should have sent someone with a "higher profile" than just the U.S.
ambassador to France.
Then this week, the White House announced that Obama will not see the
Israeli Prime Minister on his March visit to address Congress, calling
the invitation from House Speaker John Boehner a breach of protocol. But
the president did make time on Thursday to visit with a YouTube star
who once took a bath in a tub filled with milk and Fruit Loops,
prompting much ridicule.
Now, with the change announced Saturday by the White House, Biden will
stay in Washington as Obama makes the trip to Saudi Arabia.
But once again, Obama will be a day late and a dollar short. He won't
stop in Riyadh until Tuesday, while Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, French President
Francois Hollande and Japan's Crown Prince Naruhito will visit on
Saturday and Sunday to offer condolences.
Well, maybe Obama is afraid that Hollande will treat him about as well as Netanyahu does.
And then there's the
Auschwitz snub.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will represent the United States at the
70th anniversary ceremony for the liberation of the Auschwitz
concentration camp on Tuesday—rather than President Barack Obama or Vice
President Joe Biden—while other countries are slated to send their
heads of state.
Tuesday’s ceremony will likely be the last major anniversary where a
significant number of survivors of the Nazi camp are present. About 300
are expected to attend, and most of them are in their 90s or older than
100. Nazi authorities killed 1.1 million people at the camp, mostly Jews, which was liberated by the Soviet army in January 1945.
The New York Times reported on the foreign dignitaries that would be present:
A preliminary list of those attending includes President
François Hollande of France, President Joachim Gauck of Germany and
President Heinz Fischer of Austria, as well as King Philippe of Belgium,
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Crown Prince Frederik of
Denmark. The United States delegation will be led by Treasury Secretary
Jacob J. Lew.
The White House claims that Obama will be in India on a 'long-scheduled' trip. As if they didn't know when the liberation of Auschwitz took place. At least he'll avoid Hollande there too.
Labels: Auschwitz, Barack Hussein Obama, France, Francois Hollande, India, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Abdullah, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Taj Mahal
