Your points are well taken. However, the Arabs are so dishonest. They have been sidling up to Israel since the Lebanonese War precisely because they are afraid that the U.S. will do what the U.S. always does get bored and leave Iraq with the Sunni Arab nations left to face Iran alone. The Arabs know that only Israel can protect them. However, they and their stooges have spent so long denouncing Israel's existence that they are afraid to break the news to their citzens that they need Israel.

While corruption is a serious problem in Israel it is not corruption is not true explanation of Olmert's or Peretz' political weakness. The cause of that is the failure to inflict enough damage on Hezbollah. Israelis were willing to endure more missile strikes in exchange for eliminating the Hezbollah threat. Instead, whether because Halutz is inept or Israel listened to Rumsfeld the war was botched. Olmert has not recovered from that.

You did fail to mention the three soldiers being held by Arab groups. One gathers that until they are released or at least a deal made for them Israel is going to be very skeptical about any deal.
Daniel A. Greenbaum

If the leader of Saudi Arabia flys to Israel after the summit to deliver, in person, a peace proposal. Then there will be something to talk about.

It would also help if the peace proposal was not offered in the form of an ultimatum. i.e. accept this proposal or it's war. No Arab nation is preparing to go to war with Israel over these issues. It is true that the current situation is a simmering war, but the words of the Saudis seem to indicate that, if not for this peace proposal, armies will soon be on the march.

It is also worth noting that the Israeli journalist, who is apparently "a US-based" correspondent for an Israeli publication, was given not given a visa. That journalist, Orly Azoulay, was actually denied a visa. Not only that, but the visa itself could only be applied for under the journalist French passport (she holds both Israeli and French citizenship). Because she was part of the U.N. reporter pool, she flew to Saudi anyway. Once there, they let her in.

As it stands, an Jewish Israeli journalist, living in Israel, covering Israeli news, who doesn't work for an international organization, doesn't have a chance of setting foot inside of Saudi Arabia.

Don't get me wrong, I find these developments, overall, to be encouraging. But, the details do show that the Arab nations still have many internal discomforts with the idea of a legitimate Israeli nation living amongst. This discomfort lives independent of the existence (or lack of existence) of a Palestinian state.

Your points are well taken. However, the Jews are so dishonest. They have been sidling up to Saudi Arabia since the Iraq War precisely because they are afraid that the U.S. will do what the U.S. always does get bored and leave Iraq with the Israel left to face Iran alone. Israel knows that only the Sunni Arabs can protect them. However, they and their stooges have spent so long denouncing Arabs that they are afraid to break the news to their citzens that they need the Saudi's and their allies.

While corruption is a serious problem in Saudi Arabia it is not corruption is not true explanation of Faisal's or Achmad' political weakness. The cause of that is the failure to inflict enough damage on Israel. Saudi's were willing to endure more missile strikes in exchange for eliminating the Zionist threat. Instead, whether because Sadat is inept or the Saudi's listened to Carter the war was botched. Arabs have not recovered from that.

You did fail to mention the many Arabs being held by the Israeli secret police. One gathers that until they are released or at least a deal made for them Arabs are going to be very skeptical about any deal.

See. That wasn't racist at all.

Thank you, Daniel A. Greenbaum for the excellent reminder as to why I chose to stay away from Israel/Palestine threads.

Best wishes and warmest regards.

I recognize there is a philosophical, and indeed ideal, aspect of what I quote below.

You did fail to mention the three soldiers being held by Arab groups. One gathers that until they are released or at least a deal made for them Israel is going to be very skeptical about any deal.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought Daniel was saying that these soldiers had to be returned for any discussions with anyone. I agree that the Arab League would not appear to be a party to this issue, but that's what I thought he was saying.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Vague suspicions of "who's on first..."

Sorry for any confusion. I was trying to find out if Daniel's opinion was just that, or if his statement accurately reflected Israeli policy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"We hope..."?  Considering that the Riyadh summit's stated purpose has been to re-launch the exact same initiative initially launched from Beirut five years ago, why does the idea of a singular committee that could facilitate a diplomatic channel for a comprehensive approach to its initiative come up only now on the second and final day of the Arab League summit?

Actually, Zionista, I read a report yesterday that there are committees being set up to work on the plan. (I did a cursory search to find the article with no luck, but if you doubt me, please say so and I'll find it. It seems to me fairly meaningless on which day committees were discussed anyway, btw.)

"Do what we say, then maybe we'll talk"?

Isn't it Israel who is saying this, by asking for amendments to the plan before it is even negotiated? 

This is a historic opportunity for peace. Not only Israel's Arab neighbors have signed on to the plan, but other Muslim countries:

Three other Muslim states are likely to join this framework: Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia, who were invited to attend the summit as guests, and who are expected to broaden the initiative to the Muslim world and offer Israel a greater incentive. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843368.html)

This plan offers a wider peace than any previously proposed, and would have the added benefit of reducing the appeal of Hamas. As Jo-ann has pointed out, if action is not taken soon, there's a chance that Netanyahu will be elected again (Ominous note: Wolf Blitzer had him on as a guest contributor not that long ago - I'm sure the neocons will be pushing for his election). As you know, Netanyahu will be likely to lead Israel away from any real peace with the Palestinians. Is that what you want, Zionista?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Zionista,

I'm afraid your account differs from Ms. Azoulay's,...While it isn't clear from her account that she had specifically applied for the visa with her Israeli passport, the fact that the visa was initially rejected suggests it wasn't a French passport.

Here is what the news wires were reporting yesterday:

Orly Azoulay, the Washington bureau chief of Yediot Aharonot, was unable to obtain a visa to Saudi Arabia despite assurances the Saudi mission in New York gave the United Nations last week, said Michéle Montas, Mr. Ban’s spokeswoman.

Ms. Montas said that both Lebanon and Saudi Arabia initially refused to grant Ms. Azoulay a visa, but that Lebanon had dropped its objections last week and given her the needed stamp.

Ms. Azoulay, 53, an Israeli-born dual citizen of France and Israel, sought the visa on her French passport.

I believe my comments were accurate. It is still unclear whether she ever received the actual visa. Did she officially receive one? or was just allowed into the country as an unregistered guest of the U.N. press pool?

Hey friends,

Can we calm down a bit? Throwing around who is and isn't a racist doesn't seem to get anyone anywhere. It would be great if you could ratchet the rhetoric down and just make the different points.

I've been receiving lots of complaints on these threads, so I'd appreciate it if we could all just take a deep breath and make it so that I don't have to read every comment to make sure someone hasn't called someone else a racist or an antisemite. Quite frankly, I think we all have more productive things to do.

Andrew

Thanks for the 1-rating Wordie.  You can throw the old Likudnik accusation at me, and I'm supposed to take it and like it.  It's good to know the rules.

pkafin says:

If the leader of Saudi Arabia flys to Israel after the summit to deliver, in person, a peace proposal. Then there will be something to talk about.

Why? Why should this be necessary for Israel to consider the peace initiative? It seems like just another demand, like the others that Israel has used for so many years in order to avoid negotiations and the unpleasantness of compromise. It's interesting to note that, although they've agreed to discussions, Olmert is also refusing to talk about anything substantive with Abbas. It's time for a change!

It would also help if the peace proposal was not offered in the form of an ultimatum. i.e. accept this proposal or it's war.

Nobody said "accept this proposal or it's war."

You also have stressed the issue of the journalist, but have offered no link to any sources that claim the visa was initially denied. Please provide a link.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Zionista.

Why are you continuing to post a dishonestly edited version of al-Faisal's comments when I provided the quote in full on your own blog on this issue yesterday? Just for the record, I will once again provide the corrected version of al-Faisal's words:

"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3382241,00.html

PS. Earlier on this thread you state that Hizbollah is holding three Israeli soldiers. The number is two, which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the events surrounding the summer war well knows.

Andrew.

Could you please clarify something here? From your statement above, I take that it's the namecalling by individual posters directed at another poster that's objectionable.

Does that imply that obviously racist/anti-semitic statements are to be given a pass and that to point out that the words themselves could be considered as such is also out-of-bounds?

While I'm sure you do receive a lot of complaints on these threads, I hope you are considering the sources and taking note of the merit of the complainers' objections. I know you have a larger brief than to moderate threads and suggest that you consider asking commenters who are objective to help out.

As always, good luck!

Jo-Ann: Thanks for a great article. I found some excerpts published in the Beirut Star of the recently released Riyadh Declaration, the final communique of the Arab League summit (which also dealt with other issues). Here are a few highlights:

- Affirm a just and comprehensive peace as a strategic option for the Arab nation and the Arab peace initiative that draws the right path for reaching a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the principles and resolutions of international legitimacy and the land-for-peace formula.

- Call on Israel to "accept the Arab peace initiative and seize the available opportunity to resume direct and serious negotiations on all tracks." [emphasis mine}

- Create working groups to carry out contacts with the United Nations, United States, Europe and Russia to mobilize support for this initiative and start serious negotiation.

This makes it pretty clear that the claims that the initiative represents an ultimatum are false, and are probably no more than propaganda points thrown out by those who do not wish peace, or, more precisely, by those who wish to avoid the compromises that reaching a true peace will entail.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

lally,

PS. Earlier on this thread you state that Hizbollah is holding three Israeli soldiers. The number is two, which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the events surrounding the summer war well knows.

Oh, only two?  That's OK then.

"Call on Israel to accept the Arab peace initiative"

So what do it mean? What it doesn't mean?

Why? Why should this be necessary for Israel to consider the peace initiative?

Why?  Because Israel is a democracy and leaders who attempt to ram unpopular diplomatic initiatives down the throats of an unwilling public are voted out of office.  The post-Oslo terror offensive, the election of Hamas, and the responses to the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza has made the Israeli public extremely pessimistic about the prospects for peace.  The Israeli public is skeptical that the Arab League offer is genuine.  A psychological breakthrough is necessary - and a visit to Jerusalem by Abdullah would provide such a breakthrough.

A brief refresher on how the mood of the Israeli public impacts the dovishness or hawkishness of the Israeli government

1992 (optimistic) -> Rabin-led Labor wins

1996 (pessimistic) -> Likud's Bibi defeats Labor's Peres

1999 (optimistic) -> Labor's Barak defeats Likud's Bibi

2001 (extremely pessimistic) -> Sharon defeat Barak

2003 (extremely pessimistic) -> Likud makes large gains, Labor collapses

2006 (less pessimistic) -> Olmert's centrist Kadima wins the most seats, Likud collapses     

Support for Likud crashed to a low of 12 seats (out of 120) in the 2006 elections.  But one year later, as a result of the Hamas win, the Qassams and the Lebanon war, current polls show Bibi getting 30-35 seats and being capable of forming a right-wing-religious coalition.  (Olmert garnered a whopping 2 percent approval rating in a recent poll !!!)

A Likud revival will likely result in the Arab League initiative becoming still-born.  Supporting the Saudis misplaced priorities of soothing the rejectionists rather than appealing to the Israeli electorate is tantamount to supporting a Likud victory.        

mhpine.

The Likud revival was well underway long before the latest business about the Arab initiative arose and is primarily linked to the perceived failures of The Second Lebanon War and the endless eruptions of corruption scandal after corruption scandal. Halutz, Peretz and Olmert have been so hapless and clueless that they make Sharon et al look good in comparison. Leaks from the Winograd Commission and myriad other sources about the mess made of the war have contributed to the malaise, especially since Israelis now know that the planning for the war began in March of 2006.

Insisting that Abdullah should appeal to the Israeli electorate rather than the priorites of "the rejectionists" doesn't show much interest in or respect for the realities of the ME.

Attempting to apportion any blame for a prospective Bibi/Likud victory to Abdullah is nonsense. It would make more sense to blame Bibi's American fans and the fact that his recent meeting with Cheney enhances his standing in the eyes of the Israeli electorate.

If Israelis are so disgusted with the current bunch and elect the formerly disdained Bibi, they can find parallels with the Palestinians' choice of Hamas over the corrupt Fatah.

Before the ever popular exchange of insults Jo-Ann wrote

a result of her recent trip was the announcement of regular meetings between Olmert and Abu Mazen, the Palestinian president, but without serious negotiations, all that these meetings do is serve to manage the Israeli occupation

It pains me to agree with Condi or the Adminstration but........ I do.

Scheduling one of those all talking , all singing, all dancing conferences seems usually to be taken , by those who don't want it to happen, as a challenge to do something horrible to make sure it won't .

If Olmert and Abbas are meeting twice a month
maybe the bi-national ,you can't do business with ..(insert name).....cohort will get atrocity fatique. And if all that does is cut down on the killing , great.If in addition the two guys actually exchange a quiet word or two in the corridor while shouting insults for publication , maybe peace happens faster.

Anyway , for me it's chickensoup.Guess I'll see
what bitterlemons says.

Zionista:

rhetorical question A question asked without expecting an answer but for the sake of emphasis or effect. (from Answers.com)

I asked the question in the hopes that you would stop for a moment and consider what are the alternatives at this point to the Arab Peace Initiative. Rice's efforts show little promise, and Netanyahu is gaining in the polls, apparently. Is there anything else on the horizon? If Netanyahu is elected, there is little hope of a Palestinian state ever becoming reality, as the illegal settlements would undoubtedly be increased to the point where it really would be impossible to dislodge them. At that point, the only way that Israel would be able to find peace would be to actually commit genocide against the Palestinians, who would otherwise undoubtedly fight for another 2,000 years to regain, just as the Jews have done, their ancestral homeland. That isn't something I would view as desirable. So by tearing the Initiative down and nitpicking it to death, instead of encouraging others to support it, in my view you are giving support to Netanyahu's eventual election, whether or not that's your explicit intent.

The initiative has significant things to recommend it. It offers the opportunity to weaken both Hamas and Hezbollah, as the relative reputations of both Abbas and the Saudi King would be enhanced throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds by a peace that they had brokered with the Israelis; it would be Abbas and the Saudis who would be seen as being able to finally bring statehood to the Palestinians. And that the plan is unconnected to us Americans increases it's credibility on the Arab street, making it more likely that any remaining Palestinian opposition to the existance of Israel, after peace is achieved, could be more easily contained and discouraged by Palestinian society. All this is so clearly to Israel's advantage that I can't see why there is any opposition to it.

Even if I believed it to be true that you were Likud, Zionista, I would never say so, as it would only provide an opening to go off for pages discussing that, rather than the topic of the thread.

And I gave you the 1 for this:

Go cheney yourself with that.

I don't know if anyone reported that to Andrew, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was this comment of yours that he was referring to earlier when he had to ask people to tone it down.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

The meeting of Arab states in Saudi Arabia is an historic moment that must not be dismissed by the U.S. or Israel, yet due to the weak leadership in America and in Israel today, it just might be.

As a historian, I can't help note that you mention that this is a historic moment. But what troubles me the most is that the even the new hopes for peace still seem to demand the same things the Palestinians have been demanding for years now: "the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel."

Again, as a historian, I must argue that this is a major or perhaps THE major hurdle in any negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The reason I say this is because the Palestinians are asking the Israelis--and the whole world--to ignore history altogether! They are asking everybody to totally suspend historical facts and pretend that it is totally the fault of Israel that they are refugees in the first place! But when one looks into the history of modern Israel--I mean when anyone seriously studies modern history--there is no doubt as to what history unveils.

The truth of the matter is that Israel NEVER overtly kicked mass numbers of Arabs out of the partition they were given by the United Nations in 1947! The only time Israelis forced Arabs from the land was during the Arabs wars of destruction against the Jews taking possession of the land they were given by the U.N. legally and totally. But today, the Arab refugees are asking for a "right to return" into Israel to the land which they were forced out of only because they attacked Israelis in four major Wars in which they tried to kick the Jewish people out of the land! This is a historical fact that cannot be denied no matter how hard the Palestinians try to deny it!

To claim a "right to return" is outrageous and unbelievable. It would be like the French people claiming the "right to return" to the Louisiana Purchase territory in the United States since they once owned that land! What madness! Israel is now Israel and the Arab Palestinians who attacked it along with several neighboring nations in four major wars and continuously through terrorism for 60 years have NO right to return whatsoever! That’s just bogus crapola. And if the zillionaire oil-rich nations which surround Palestine have never helped the poor Palestinian refugees in the last sixty years, well what does that say about their religion and their mindset? May Allah be blessed.

Wordie, 

Zionista: that the Saudis are seeking support for their proposal in states other than Israel first, is no reason to disparage them, nor to dismiss or criticize the plan.

We recognize these "other states" as the "Quartet."  How much more support do they need from the Quartet?  Solana and Ban were at the summit, Rice toured the region ahead of it.  Honestly, I don't know the extent that Putin & Co. have followed the events in Riyadh.  For at least the most part, they're already on board.

Do you think Israel is willing to accept the plan as the basis for negotiation? Do you think Israel should accept the plan as the basis for negotiation?

I agree with everything Shimon Peres said on al-Jazeera, and would add that we are discussing an initiative.  It's supposed to initiate negotiations, and the Arab League member nations need to start negotiating with Israel.  Russia, not so much.

PS: Thanks for the link to the declaration at the Star.

Update: 

Wordie,

Do you think Israel is willing to accept the plan as the basis for negotiation?

From today's Ha'aretz,

Israel's official response, released in a statement by the Foreign Ministry in coordination with the Prime Minister's Bureau, was lukewarm. It ignored the content of the Riyadh resolution and focused on the call by the moderate Arab nations to enter a dialogue with Israel.

"Israel believes in peace, and seeks to establish peaceful and neighborly relations both with the Palestinian people and with all the states of the region," the Foreign Ministry statement said. "Israel is sincerely interested in pursuing a dialogue with those Arab states that desire peace with Israel, this in order to promote a process of normalization and cooperation. Israel hopes that the Riyadh Summit will contribute to this effort.

"Israel's position with regard to the peace process with the Palestinians is founded upon fundamental principles, the most central of which is the existence of two nation-states, with each state addressing the national aspirations of its own people - Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people - and with both states coexisting in peace, free from the threat of terrorism and violence. For this purpose, a direct dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians is necessary." The statement added: "Israel also believes that moderate Arab states can fill a positive role by encouraging regional cooperation, and supporting the Israel-Palestinian track. A dialogue between these states and Israel can contribute to this end."

Accusations of anti-Semitism are commonly used in the US to attempt to render some opinions unspeakable, even though these opinions are commonly expressed by Israeli Jews and can be read every day in Ha'aretz and other publications. It's just a bullying tactic.