Saudis reject Obama's plan for ties with Israel: Top urgency is Iran threat

[PJABBER]

The Obama Administration's relationship with U.S. allies around the world has been tepid and poorly managed. At best, there is a growing fear that the naivete of the current Administration will result in irreversible damage to long standing relationships and exacerbate critical problems in hot spots around the world.

The Middle East remains one place where things can go wrong very, very quickly. While the Obama Administration is fixed on fixing unfixable Israeli-Palestinian issues, most countries in the region are much more concerned with the looming issue of a nuclear armed Iran. The Saudis, and possibly seven other Arab states as well, want a complete de-coupling of the separate issues so that the Iran issue can be met head-on without further delay.


Saudis reject Obama's plan for ties with Israel: Top urgency is Iran threat

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

August 1, 2009, 4:31 PM (GMT+02:00)

Saudi FM Saud al Faisal in Washington

Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal's rejection of the Obama administration's Middle East approach was a lot more comprehensive than a blunt refusal to improve relations with Israel to help restart peace talks. DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that in closed-door talks with US leaders, including secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Saudi prince urged the US to get off their backs on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and deal more seriously and effectively with top-urgency action for stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb.

After those talks, Saud said his government would not consider steps suggested by the Obama administration until Israel accepted Arab demands "to withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territories."

With Clinton looking on at a joint State Department news conference Friday, July 31, the Saudi foreign minister dismissed Obama principles one by one: "Temporary security and confidence building measures will also not bring peace," he maintained and rejected "incrementalism and a step-by-step approach."

What is required, he said is "a comprehensive approach that defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final-status issues, including the future Palestinian state, control of Jerusalem, the return of Palestinian refugees, water and security."

Our Gulf sources note that the Saudi foreign minister thus reaffirmed in public the rejection of President Barack Obama's Middle East policies which he encountered when he met King Abdullah in Riyadh on June 3.

This week, the Saudis shot into action to elicit more rejections from the seven Arab rulers who received personal letters from the US president asking for their cooperation in the peace effort by normalizing gestures towards Israel.

DEBKAfile's political sources comment that by stipulating Israel's surrender on all its core issues with the Palestinians before negotiations even begin the Saudis render those negotiations superfluous.

It means that Israel will only be asked to arrange for the technicalities and timelines for its predetermined pullback to the pre-1967 (or 1949) lines, its handover of Jerusalem to Arab control, the distribution and administration of regional water resources and the return of the refugees and their descendants to the homes they forfeited on account of the 1948 Arab war against the new Israeli state.

Two motives account for this Saudi all-or-nothing dictatorial position on Middle East peace, DEBKAfile' s analysts reports:

1. Riyadh is loath to waste effort on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or any other elements of the Obama program such as détente with Syria when far more urgent business tops the royal agenda: The Saudis object strongly to the further entrenchment of the Shiite-ruled government in Baghdad and the restoration of Syrian influence in Beirut - both under US auspices. Washington is also seen to be making overtures towards Hizballah which can only strengthen the hand of the Lebanese Shiite extremists in the Lebanese government coalition.

Furthermore, they see the bitter rift between the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip and the Fatah faction governing the West Bank as irreconcilable and therefore an insurmountable barrier to Middle East peacemaking.

2. The Saudis maintain that Obama and his Middle East envoy George Mitchell have been sidetracked by minor regional issues from dealing with the primary concern of the Gulf and Middle East region, the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Until that cloud is lifted, they say, no other initiatives have a chance. Paradoxically, this reading of the Middle East impasse is shared by Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak.

Saudi al Faisal's angry snub of the Obama administration's Middle East plans carries a clear message: First tackle the perils besetting us from the east and the north (Iraq and Iran) before you badger us about the Israelis and Palestinians.

 

[jpeyton]

A "nuclear Iran" is as much of a boogeyman (or perhaps even more so) than "Iraqi WMDs".

I'm glad Obama isn't sabre-rattling.

 

[Brainonska511]

Ah, yes, our great "friends" the Saudis.....

 

[Xellos2099]

Obama just doesn't understand that just being friendly with your enemy doesn't made them your friends. Being friendly with enemy will most likely cost us' ally.

 

[Lemon law]

Of all the Arab States, Saudi Arabia may not live the furthest away from Israel, but damn near. And Sunni Muslim dominated Saudi Arabia is far more concerned about a Shia Muslim alliance between Iran and Iraq, effectively severing their land based ties with the rest of the Sunni dominated mid-east.

The fact that Iran may or may not have nuclear weapons no earlier than six years from now, only gives more heat but no light to the Saudi position. Arab nations who lie closer to Israeli military range are going to be far more worried about the Israelis to pay much attention to Saudi concerns partly driven by its Wahabists beliefs.

The other big loser nation in the Bush decision to invade Iraq is Turkey, because the Kurdish questions Turkey does not want to address are now a wild card if Iraq does not hold together. And Kurdish oil wealth can buy many allies.

 

[magomago]

Wow this article is full of propaganda it is almost failboat. It hits two parts: a) the "arabs" don't seem to care about Palestinians, they really want to deal with Iran and b) the Arabs aren't interested in any peace with Israel.

the Saudi prince urged the US to get off their backs on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and deal more seriously and effectively with top-urgency action for stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb.

This statement has no credibility because we have no source, nothing to prove it, and it comes from DEBKA (which is viewed as more conspiracy theory than anything - but I'll argue not based on where the article came from; I just wanted to point this out). Now, this is not to say that closed sources are automatically B.S., but we need to understand where these types of claims are coming from before we understand why it is B.S.

Saudi Arabia and other gulf state are of course concerned with Iran --> they want their own sphere of influence in the middle east as well, and they happen to be right next to Iran whereas Israel is some distance away. Politically (ie: money, power, and control) it is of concern to them. Any growing state next to you means that you will have less influence in your surroudings. But to take it to the level of bombing Iran and putting aside the Palestinian issue is to engage in a dance of lies. Iran and Saudi Arabia share about 450 million worth of trade between each other which isn't that much (http://www.irantracker.org/for...arabia-iran-relations). However, Saudi Arabia seems to be investing more, recently participating in a foreign development conference in Iran in May (http://www.irna.ir/En/View/Ful...d=510384&IdLanguage=3). I suppose those are the tactics these days, right? Try to increase trade so you can bomb them ASAP (or this is what radical pro Israelis are trying to push because they want us to forget what is going on in Palestine...as if Iran is an existential threat). Other Gulf states only seem to have more economic ties with Iran (Bahrain for example). And of course - you don't bomb who you trade with because it isn't good for business. We learned that one from China.

Now - Saudi Arabia has called for Arab States to deal with (a) Israeli Palestine situation (b) Internal Arab Security and (c) Iran. But considering the close proximity, and how Iran, even if they don't have the technology to take on Saudi Arabia, could still fuck up the passage of oil in the region. Arab States have shown to be concerned more with their own survival than ideology (good and bad - good because in this case risking it all to stop a Iranian bomb isn't worth their money, their estates, their lives. Bad because many seem to focus on those same things even when faced with a poor population).

So where is the source of such a statement? We need to look more at radical pro Israelis at home than from countries half way across the world. "Iran is a threat to Israel, we must do something!" is repeated a lot by radical pro Israelis and PACs like the AIPAC. That has been their mantra for a long time "Forget about Palestinians, think about Iran!". People like David Gregory, Richard Engle (he has especially been one to go around spouting that Arab States care more about Iran), Mark Whitaker, along with our hawk senators like Lieberman all push that Iran is more important than Palestinians. If anything, to complete the circle, these statements morph into our current "Israel, eerr ARAB STATES care more about Iran than it does about resolving the Palestinian Issue!". Now we come around full circle. We can also begin to understand that many of the other statements are simply phrases repeated by Israel : "Oh the Palestinians are so divided right now [nevermind the fact that we support that division by assisting one over the other!] that there is simply no realistic peace that moves on".

So with that in mind...let us look at what Saudi Arabia has actually PROPOSED.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/wor...ia_reports/1899395.stm
+Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.
+Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
+ Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
+ Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region
+ Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace

What is the take home message? Palestinians establish their state on the remaining 22% of the land with East Jerusalem serving as the capital. A solution to the Palestinian Right of Return is reaffirmed (they have every right to pursue it, but can agree to a settlement in exchange for their right of return). Full normalization of relations with Israel and considering the ?conflict? at an end.

Now let us get to the same event reported at Al Jazeera, which is farrrrr more reliable than Debka.
http://english.aljazeera.net/n...09731204851470666.html

Saudis reject call for Israel ties
Saudi Arabia has dismissed calls by the US government to mend relations with Israel to help restart peace talks between the Israel and the Palestinians.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said on Friday that Riyadh would not consider forging links with Israel until it agrees to withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territories.
"Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach, has not and, we believe, will not lead to peace," al-Faisal said on Friday, after holding talks with Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Washington.
"Temporary security and confidence building measures will also not bring peace."
Final status issues
Al-Faisal said that Israel must adhere to what is stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been endorsed by the 22-member Arab League, in order for it to have a constructive relationship with Saudi Arabia.
"What is required is a comprehensive approach that defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues," he said.
Those final status issues include marking the borders of a future Palestinian state, control of the city of Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, security and water rights.
Barack Obama, the US president, Clinton and George Mitchell, the Middle East peace envoy, have all called on Arab states to build relations with Israel.
Measures such as opening trade offices, allowing academic exchanges and permitting civilian Israeli aircraft to overfly their airspace have been touted by Washington as a way for Arab nations to show they are committed to peace in the region.
The Obama administration wants "the Arab states, including our friends in Saudi Arabia, to work with us to take steps to improve relations with Israel, to support the Palestinian Authority and to prepare their people to embrace the eventual peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis," Clinton said after talks with al-Faisal.
"Saudi Arabia's continued leadership is absolutely vital to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace," she said.
Dramatic geture'
Her remarks about the importance of Saudi Arabia to the process were supported by more than 200 US politicians who urged King Abdullah, the Saudi ruler, to push Middle East peace efforts forward with "a dramatic gesture".
"We have been disappointed thus far to see the public reaction of your government to President Obama's request," they wrote in a letter to the monarch.
"We urge you to assert a strong leadership role and help lead the Middle East to a new era of peace and reconciliation by stepping forward with a dramatic gesture toward Israel akin to the steps taken earlier by the leaders of Egypt and Jordan."
Egypt and Jordan are the only Arab nations which have diplomatic relations with Israel.
But al-Faisal said Israel was ignoring the Arab Peace Initiative, a proposal in which Arab states would formally recognise Israel in return of its withdrawal from Arab territories occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
"The question really is: 'What will Israel give in exchange for this comprehensive settlement offer'?" he said.
"Israel hasn't even responded to an American request to halt settlements [in the Israeli occupied West Bank], which President Obama described as illegitimate," he said.

That now gives us an ENTIRELY different article. It actually reported on what they said with quotes, as opposed to go to closed sources which we already know is questionable considering it is the exact same message radical Israelis have been pushing for a long time.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said on Friday that Riyadh would not consider forging links with Israel until it agrees to withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territories.

Translation: ?Why establish ties with Israel when nothing has been resolved with Palestine? That is basically rewarding them for the status quo: telling them that they get positive gestures for a war in the prison known as Gaza, for sky rocketing the number of settlements in occupied west bank, etc. No ? let us see some work on REAL issues first. None of this bullshit?

"Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach, has not and, we believe, will not lead to peace," al-Faisal said on Friday, after holding talks with Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Washington.
"Temporary security and confidence building measures will also not bring peace."

Translation: The Oslo years brought about the greatest number of Settlers in what was supposed to be ?Icrementalism?. We are not interested in a repetition of that.

"What is required is a comprehensive approach that defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues," he said.
Those final status issues include marking the borders of a future Palestinian state, control of the city of Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, security and water rights.

Translation: ?Let us stop pussy footing around the issue and hit it head on. But pussy footing is what lets Israel take more and more. Imagine if we did final status 15 years ago?

But al-Faisal said Israel was ignoring the Arab Peace Initiative, a proposal in which Arab states would formally recognise Israel in return of its withdrawal from Arab territories occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
"The question really is: 'What will Israel give in exchange for this comprehensive settlement offer'?" he said.
"Israel hasn't even responded to an American request to halt settlements [in the Israeli occupied West Bank], which President Obama described as illegitimate," he said

Translation: Israel is the one that really hasn?t done anything. We put out a peace plan. We said ?okay, keep more than what was originally partitioned?. We said ?We will enter final status negotiations and with its completion immediately normalize relations?.
And what was the Israeli Response to such a document, which is notable because it does recognize Israel on 78% of what we originally Palestinian land? No response to outright rejection (officially no response, but outright rejection on the basis of individual Israeli politicians).
Netanyahu, when we was an opposition leader, said that he rejected it http://www.ynet.co.il/english/...7340,L-3429705,00.html
Super Radical, Avigdor Lieberman, the Foreign Minister of the current Israeli Govt, is quoted as follows:

The firebrand rightist was earlier quoted by Army Radio as branding the Arab plan, which was launched in Saudi Arabia and offers pan-Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands, as "a dangerous proposal, a recipe for the destruction of Israel."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080199.html

And finally, the Saudis hit the nail on the head. We talk about ?gestures from Arab states??when already Israel has done nothing (oh wait ? they made it seem like check points went away! http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...israeli-checkpoints-us ?Farouq al-Masri, manager at the new Nablus cinema, says: "Israel is always trying to make it look as though the occupation has ended, rather than actually ending it."? ) ?but as the Saudis point out, ?Even obama can?t get them to stop on ILLEGAL Settlements?and you want us to reward them for behavior when their govt has made NO steps forward to achieve peace?"

edit:
forgot to add the link to the al jazeera english article

edit:
just noticed some grammar issues

 

[Lemon law]

PJABBER states without any any effort to jsutify his opinion , "The Obama Administration's relationship with U.S. allies around the world has been tepid and poorly managed. At best, there is a growing fear that the naivete of the current Administration will result in irreversible damage to long standing relationships and exacerbate critical problems in hot spots around the world."

Pardon me PJABBER, no where is that evident to me or many others, the main Obama problem is and remains charting a return to traditional norms of US diplomacy while at the same time trying to repair the horrendous damage to US foreign relations done by GWB and its simply going to take Obama a while to regain much of the trust GWB lost.

And now that the GWB's greedy fantasy of winning in Iraq proved to be a case of GWB's reach exceeding both his his grasp and competency, both Saudi Arabia and Turkey are very unhappy for slightly different reasons. But there is no reason to blame Obama or Iran
for cause of the problem.

And PJABBER has simply thrown out a rotten red herring and deserves to get told why he has no logical leg to stand on.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Obama just doesn't understand that just being friendly with your enemy doesn't made them your friends. Being friendly with enemy will most likely cost us' ally.

Israel is too expensive of an ally so that sounds good to me. That and nobody is being friendly with Iran.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: magomago
Wow this article is full of propaganda it is almost failboat. It hits two parts: a) the "arabs" don't seem to care about Palestinians, they really want to deal with Iran and b) the Arabs aren't interested in any peace with Israel.

What do you expect from a site like http://www.debka.com?

Whois DEBKA.COM

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Obama just doesn't understand that just being friendly with your enemy doesn't made them your friends. Being friendly with enemy will most likely cost us' ally.

Israel is too expensive of an ally so that sounds good to me.

Why not just let the middle east duke it out? Both sides are right/wrong depending on the political view, so it is a lose lose for us if we back one side or the other.

 

[PJABBER]

Thanks for the detailed reply, magomago. I don't have time to get into a point by point reply as I have to get to a birthday party I am already late for, but here are a couple of points.

1. The Debka analysis is not my own, but it does adequately point out significant weaknesses in the Obama diplo approach, where foreign heads of state and national interests, even those at cross purposes to each other, do not coincide with those of his (my opinion) genuinely flawed world view.

2. Though headquartered in Jerusalem, Debka does not represent the Israeli government viewpoint though it has interesting access to members of the government and the opposition groups within Israel, and, apparently, those of other countries in the Mid East. These are sources in the militaries, the intelligence services, the diplomatic corps and in the private sector - all have agendas, overt and hidden. Debka is a small team of journalists and analysts sitting in an apartment/office in Israel with sources both reliable and maybe not so reliable (journalists right?) It is often criticized for releasing information that the Israeli government, and others, don't want exposed. A lot of their reports are initially questioned and then confirmed later. I found some of their work is flawed, but they do deliver some unexpected info that is then open to evaluation/confirmation by other sources.

Their self description -

DEBKAfile was founded by a team of journalists in June 2000 as an independent Internet Web site, providing an intelligence and security news service.
We pioneered intensive news coverage and analysis of global terror before it hit the front pages as the looming threat to world security.
This forward slant has become DEBKAfile's quintessential trademark for an ever-widening, regular audience in 156 countries.
We are especially popular in the United States, with viewers in every state, as well as the Middle East and Europe.
DEBKAfile's innovative approach plumbs the underlying causes of international conflicts and overt and secret wars, delves into the arcane workings of international Islamic terror and the world of intelligence, and updates you on military affairs and the Middle East.
We have developed unmatched expertise on Iran.
DEBKAfile in English and Hebrew is updated four times a day, seven days a week.
DEBKAfile has won world-class awards and is frequently quoted in the world media and contemporary documentary literature as a leading authority on geopolitical issues.
DEBKAfile was cited Best of the Web in 2002 by Forbes; selected Hot Site by USAToday, profiled in the New York Observer (A Web Site With the Inside Dope on the Middle East), Time Magazine, Le Monde, Paris, Corriere della Sera, Milan, and The London Evening Standard, Wired News (Debka: Conflict's Drudge Report?), NEW MEDIA (For the real skinny on the Afghan story).
In 2002, DEBKAfile was one of four finalists nominated by Webby (Oscar of the Web) for its annual award in the Internet news category.
The BBC has placed DEBKAfile on its list of monitored sites.
Bloomberg recommends DEBKAfile to its subscribers.
Our experts appear on Fox TV and radio, US Public Radio.

Lah dee dah.

Myself, I question all analysis and interpretation, look for overt and hidden agendas and generally do not trust until verified or proven a reliable source, subject to future unreliability. But that is just me.

3. While you accept governmental statements at face value, there is absolutely an undercurrent that rings truer, particularly in places with a Byzantine heritage. The Debka analysis presents one interpretation of that undercurrent, there are many others. But the consensus, which this article points out and why I wanted to post it, is that the Obama approach thus far is an abject failure from the get go on a number of levels and reflects naivete and is thus ultimately dangerous.

4. I actually like to read some of the stuff that comes out of Al-Jazeera English, which is somewhat independent of the Quatar Al-Jazeera, but c'mon, more reliable? But, not to argue the point, read everything and make up your own mind. I have friends translate the non-American AJ and they think it is an ideal forum for propaganda and is often used for such purposes by those who have little access to government controlled medias, themselves biased toward whatever. The Arabic language version definitely has a viewpoint and is mostly notable in the West for being fed information which they release raw.

5. My point is not to bash information sources, analysts, the Israelis, the Arabs, the non-Arabs, the Palestinians (who, in my opinion, REALLY need to blame any plight they are in on the countries they chose to be refugees in.) It is to point out that no matter how the situation is described or interpreted you see no support for the Obama Administration's diplomatic overtures and policies. In places where reality is a tinderbox, the Big O might be striking sparks with his eyes wide shut.

 

[Lemon law]

PJABBER is FOS, the Palestinians did not choose to become third class citizens in the lands of the birth now dominated by Israel.

They are simply now stuck in either the Gaza or the West Bank.

Tell me again why the Arab states should take the Palestinians in so Israel has a totally green light to steal all available land when its the Israeli responsibility to assimilate the Palestinians with equal rights?

Nothing has changed since 1948, Israel could have taken the high road by assimilating the Palestinian people and in so doing become a respected mid-east nation? And have instead opted to become a pack of thieves by systematically herding Palestinians into concentration camps.

As I stated before, I would support the former Israeli course and cannot support the latter course for Israel. There is nothing wrong with my judgment, its simply the way average Americans think about fairness. Americans simply do not think one religion is better than another or that one person is intrinsically better than another by birth.

But somehow PJABBER bias misses all those facts, and loses all logic in the process.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Of all the Arab States, Saudi Arabia may not live the furthest away from Israel, but damn near. And Sunni Muslim dominated Saudi Arabia is far more concerned about a Shia Muslim alliance between Iran and Iraq, effectively severing their land based ties with the rest of the Sunni dominated mid-east.

The fact that Iran may or may not have nuclear weapons no earlier than six years from now, only gives more heat but no light to the Saudi position. Arab nations who lie closer to Israeli military range are going to be far more worried about the Israelis to pay much attention to Saudi concerns partly driven by its Wahabists beliefs.

The other big loser nation in the Bush decision to invade Iraq is Turkey, because the Kurdish questions Turkey does not want to address are now a wild card if Iraq does not hold together. And Kurdish oil wealth can buy many allies.

As usual you are making this all about Israel......you really must not be so blatantly open about it!!

Arab nations who lie closer to the israeli`s are not worried in the least about israel.
In fact they are more worried about Iran gain entry in thye Nuclear family!

Truth be told Arab nation would sec retly welcome a limited Israeli attack on the iranian Nuclear program!!

Actually I found this article of interest -- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/p...subContrassID=1&title=''Saudis+give+Israel+green+light+to+attack+Iran''&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

Saudi Arabia has indicated to Israel that it would not protest use of its airspace by Israeli fighter jets in the event the government resolves to launch a military assault against Iran, according to a report which appeared in the British newspaper The Sunday Times.

The Prime Minister's office issued a statement in response Sunday morning, saying that "the Sunday Times report is fundamentally false and completely baseless."

According to The Sunday Times, Mossad chief Meir Dagan held secret meetings with Saudi officials, who gave their tacit approval to Israel's use of the kingdom's airspace.

"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia," The Sunday Times quoted a diplomatic source as saying last week.

The report also quoted John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as saying that it would be "entirely logical" for Israeli warplanes to fly over Saudi Arabia en route to bombing nuclear targets in Iran.

Though any Israeli attack would be roundly condemned by Mideast leaders at the UN, Bolton said Arab leaders have privately expressed trepidation at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.
"None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn't trumpet it as a big success," Bolton told The Sunday Times.

There is a whole lot of truth in this article. Regardless of what you think of Bolton or not!!

If you know anything about the middle east which the more I read your posts the more I believe you are saying whatever suits your needs.

The Saudi`s are friendlier to the Israeli`s than they are to the Iranians.
Your convoluted logic makes no sense!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
PJABBER is FOS, the Palestinians did not choose to become third class citizens in the lands of the birth now dominated by Israel.

They are simply now stuck in either the Gaza or the West Bank.

Tell me again why the Arab states should take the Palestinians in so Israel has a totally green light to steal all available land when its the Israeli responsibility to assimilate the Palestinians with equal rights?

Nothing has changed since 1948, Israel could have taken the high road by assimilating the Palestinian people and in so doing become a respected mid-east nation? And have instead opted to become a pack of thieves by systematically herding Palestinians into concentration camps.

As I stated before, I would support the former Israeli course and cannot support the latter course for Israel. There is nothing wrong with my judgment, its simply the way average Americans think about fairness. Americans simply do not think one religion is better than another or that one person is intrinsically better than another by birth.

But somehow PJABBER bias misses all those facts, and loses all logic in the process.

Far from being the hapless objects of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who from the early 1920?s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival. This campaign culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, which called for the establishment of two states in Palestine. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the UN resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place.

The simple fact is that the Zionist movement had always been amenable to the existence in the future Jewish state of a substantial Arab minority that would participate on an equal footing ?throughout all sectors of the country?s public life.? The words are those of Ze?ev Jabotinsky, the founding father of the branch of Zionism that was the forebear of today?s Likud party. In a famous 1923 article, Jabotinsky voiced his readiness ?to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone.?

Eleven years later, Jabotinsky presided over the drafting of a constitution for Jewish Palestine. According to its provisions, Arabs and Jews were to share both the prerogatives and the duties of statehood, including most notably military and civil service. Hebrew and Arabic were to enjoy the same legal standing, and ?in every cabinet where the prime minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice-versa.?

If this was the position of the more ?militant? faction of the Jewish national movement, mainstream Zionism not only took for granted the full equality of the Arab minority in the future Jewish state but went out of its way to foster Arab-Jewish coexistence. In January 1919, Chaim Weizmann, then the upcoming leader of the Zionist movement, reached a peace-and-cooperation agreement with the Hashemite emir Faisal ibn Hussein, the effective leader of the nascent pan-Arab movement. From then until the proclamation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, Zionist spokesmen held hundreds of meetings with Arab leaders at all levels. These included Abdullah ibn Hussein, Faisal?s elder brother and founder of the emirate of Transjordan (later the kingdom of Jordan), incumbent and former prime ministers in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq, senior advisers of King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (founder of Saudi Arabia), and Palestinian Arab elites of all hues.

As late as September 15, 1947, two months before the passing of the UN partition resolution, two senior Zionist envoys were still seeking to convince Abdel Rahman Azzam, the Arab League?s secretary-general, that the Palestine conflict ?was uselessly absorbing the best energies of the Arab League,? and that both Arabs and Jews would greatly benefit ?from active policies of cooperation and development.? Behind this proposition lay an age-old Zionist hope: that the material progress resulting from Jewish settlement of Palestine would ease the path for the local Arab populace to become permanently reconciled, if not positively well disposed, to the project of Jewish national self-determination. As David Ben-Gurion, soon to become Israel?s first prime minister, argued in December 1947:

If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, . . . if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge will be built to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance.

read more here -- http://www.commentarymagazine....--the-true-story-11355 <--- of course well get the saying--true according to who...lol

 

[Lemon law]

I will ask JEDIYoda to think about how long the Saudi monarchy would last if it allow the Israelis to overfly their air space, Or worse yet, to actually allow Israeli to land and supply from Saudi air bases? Either way it would violate all Wanabist principles, but at least the USA might be off the hook.

Meanwhile, shortly thereafter, there would not be a single Saudi oil Tanker able to sail in the Persian gulf for decades.

The Saudi monarchy might last more than five minutes if it pulled that stunt, but don't count on them lasting out the year before being overthrown. No Iranian nukes required as Saudi Arabia can join Israel as pariah nations. The entire Arab world would go ballistic and countless Arab leaders would vie to be the new Nassar. All united on the over throw of the Saudi Monarchy already skating on thin ice already.

Be damn careful for what you wish for.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I will ask JEDIYoda to think about how long the Saudi monarchy would last if it allow the Israelis to overfly their air space, Or worse yet, to actually allow Israeli to land and supply from Saudi air bases? Either way it would violate all Wanabist principles, but at least the USA might be off the hook. <--- I am sorry that you donot understand the concept of looking the other way...which is and would be in the Saudi`s best interest, considering it would be in the best interest of all concerned!

Meanwhile, shortly thereafter, there would not be a single Saudi oil Tanker able to sail in the Persian gulf for decades. <-- as usual thats not true at all....

The Saudi monarchy might last more than five minutes if it pulled that stunt, but don't count on them lasting out the year before being overthrown. No Iranian nukes required as Saudi Arabia can join Israel as pariah nations. The entire Arab world would go ballistic and countless Arab leaders would vie to be the new Nassar. All united on the over throw of the Saudi Monarchy already skating on thin ice already. <--- of course they would...rofl....in private they would be having parties and fesitivals.......

You see you honestly believe that the Israeli`s are the bad guys and that the United Nations can actually do something and the Arabs would all line up against Israel even if Israel took out the Iranian nuclear program...

Yes Israel eould be condemned outwardly...inwardly there would be a sigh of relief among the Arab countries.

I feel sorry for you that you honestly believe your seemingly endless diatribe!!

Shalom!!

Be damn careful for what you wish for.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: magomago
Wow this article is full of propaganda it is almost failboat. It hits two parts: a) the "arabs" don't seem to care about Palestinians, they really want to deal with Iran and b) the Arabs aren't interested in any peace with Israel.

What do you expect from a site like http://www.debka.com?

Whois DEBKA.COM

DEBKAfile (Hebrew: ??? ?????) is an Israeli, Jerusalem-based English language open source military intelligence website with commentary and analyses on terrorism, intelligence, security, and military and political affairs in the Middle East. The word "Debka" refers to a Arab folk dance.

It began in the summer of 2000, and is operated from the Jerusalem home of veteran journalists Giora Shamis and Diane Shalem.[1] It has been awarded Forbes' Best of The Web award. Forbes identifies the best part of the website as being its archives, but decries the fact that "most of the information is attributed to unidentified sources."

Yediot Achronot's investigative reporter Ronen Bergman claims that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.

Yet Another BLABBER Post

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
DEBKAfile...

Heh, the far-right Israeli wingnut site which claimed Al-Qaeda was set to dirty bomb NYC, and have been trying to sick the dogs on Iran at least since back in 2002 when they made the absurd claim that Iran built N. Korea's nukes, among a mound of other ludicrous "reports" they have ran over the years. You'd likely get more accurate information from a Ouija board.

Originally posted by: PJABBER...Palestinians (who, in my opinion, REALLY need to blame any plight they are in on the countries they chose to be refugees in.)

Yet your opinion isn't based in reality, as Palestinians didn't choose to have Zionist militias ethnically cleanse them from their homeland, and most of them live under Israeli rule in the Palestinian territories, many being refugees from the aforementioned ethnic cleansing.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Arab nations who lie closer to the israeli`s are not worried in the least about israel.

Saudi Arabia has no diplomatic relations with Israel at all, and leads the Arab League boycott of Israel on the grounds that it's conquest of Palestine is in violation of international law, which exposes the claims of the Rupert Murdoch propaganda rag you indirectly cite as absurd on their face.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The Saudi`s are friendlier to the Israeli`s than they are to the Iranians.
Your convoluted logic makes no sense!!

Hah, I'd love to see you attempt to make sense of this.

 

[First]

Your right-wing propaganda is nauseating. You're like a serious version of Phokus or mcowen.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Arab nations who lie closer to the israeli`s are not worried in the least about israel.

Saudi Arabia has no diplomatic relations with Israel at all, and leads the Arab League boycott of Israel on the grounds that it's conquest of Palestine is in violation of international law, which exposes the claims of the Rupert Murdoch propaganda rag you indirectly cite as absurd on their face. <--outward appearances are very decieving in the context of Iran getting Nuclear weapons....that`s the truth!!

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The Saudi`s are friendlier to the Israeli`s than they are to the Iranians.
Your convoluted logic makes no sense!!

Hah, I'd love to see you attempt to make sense of this.

In the context of Iran getting nuclear, the Saudi`s would turn there backs in order to let Israel attack iran. To be truthful what if anything are the countries of the middle east going to do when Iseal does attack.
At least by Israel asking permission it gets any of the middles east countries off the hook when they emphatically say to Israel no way...and then Israel does it anyway......trust me thats the way it will happen!

 

[Lemon law]

In the context of Iran getting nuclear, the Saudi`s would turn there backs in order to let Israel attack iran. To be truthful what if anything are the countries of the middle east going to do when Iseal does attack.
At least by Israel asking permission it gets any of the middles east countries off the hook when they emphatically say to Israel no way...and then Israel does it anyway......trust me thats the way it will happen!

So JEDIYoda says with all the faith and credit of a Japan who never lost a war in their logb history.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
...trust me thats the way it will happen!

I can only reasonably trust you to continue demonstrating your detachment from reality while accentuating it with extraneous bolding and excessive ellipses. 😛

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
...trust me thats the way it will happen!

I can only reasonably trust you to continue demonstrating your detachment from reality while accentuating it with extraneous bolding and excessive ellipses. 😛

Thats why I like people like you.....
You have no grasp on reality and the way things really are in thye middle east.
You mthink the arabs are united or could ever be united against israel? Never happen.
You think the arabs hate each other as much as they supposedly hate the Israeli`s?
You did I ..well at least I hope you did that Iran is one Arab nation that other Arab nations would truthfully turn a blinds eye if Israel attacked Iran!
Yet because Iran is "Arab" you really would have a public outcry against Israel.....
But behind closed doors it would mbe totally different.

I do not buy into your reality because I have lives in the middle east and did extensive traveling and talking to the people of the middle east....you would be suprised what people actually honestly think about Iran going nuclear...none of them are happy and they all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel will act when the time is right! The only question is when....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the context of Iran getting nuclear, the Saudi`s would turn there backs in order to let Israel attack iran. To be truthful what if anything are the countries of the middle east going to do when Iseal does attack.
At least by Israel asking permission it gets any of the middles east countries off the hook when they emphatically say to Israel no way...and then Israel does it anyway......trust me thats the way it will happen!

So JEDIYoda says with all the faith and credit of a Japan who never lost a war in their logb history.

This coming from the person who believes everything that is wrong in the middle east is Israel`s fault???
Then you keep blabbering about Japan never losing a war....
That sounds and looks good on paper but the facts don`t bear out that bthere ever was any waring faction that ever tried to invade japan other than internal waring factions wanting control!!