Well it's good to see that selling $20 billion worth of weaponry still gets you something in this world.

And the administration leak to the NYT about Saudi shenanigans in Iraq now looks like a bit of a diplomatic warning shot.

So you think it wise Saudi Arabia and all the Arab countries give Israel unconditional and unqualified love without any permanent status agreement with the Palestinians (which includes final resolution especially of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem--deeply impacting the greater Arab and Muslim world)?

Truth is, Emit18, if a 2 state solution isn't reached by the end of the Bush Administration in January 2009, the most realistic option will be the binational state, negating the Zionist dream. I can go on why this is the case if you really want me to, but much of it is due to domestic American politics and the spread of radicalism (only getting worse, not better, in case you haven't gone there in a while).

You tell me what's better for Israel: letting Israel feel it has all the time in the world to expand its borders? Or, as I posit, having Israel and its public understand that there is a moment where they can be welcomed into the neighborhood, but that that opportunity expires the minute a 2-state solution won't work.

I'll take the latter. And so should the Arabs.

I would like to say this is a matter between Israel and Palestine, not Egypt, Jordan, and certainly not Saudi Arabia, but given they are one and the same anything short of an end of partition will not yield peace, security or normalization.

J. McCutchen

From IraqSlogger:

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, seems the US State Department is hard of hearing:

Lest anyone argue the Saudi foreign minister didn't speak clearly when discussing Iraqi responsibilities, it would be most telling to point out the three other instances when he apparently mumbled during the press conference.

When discussing "international efforts" to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Faisal said:

Israel must prove its seriousness in dealing with these efforts by taking concrete steps away from political maneuvering and has to work effectively away from (unintelligible)

And regarding US-Saudi talks on Lebanon:

We have also discussed the Lebanese issue and the situation of tension, especially (unintelligible).

The Saudi foreign minister may want to get some help on his apparent speech impediment before negotiating with American diplomats again.

I don't think I'd get my hopes up for any kind of diplomatic progress anywhere in the world with this president, this deaf one, this lame duck.

Too many looking for payback. Power is what he understands. Power he lacks

The only things the Saudi rulers don't flinch at are another spin at the roulette wheel in Monte Carlo, another check for Jihad outside of their borders, or another billion in weapons from Uncle Sam. It would seem to be a very long haul for the war ravaged Middle East to reach any semblance of 'security and normalization'.

I wonder what sort of Mideast expert MJ really is when he claims that the Saudis are "finally" getting serious about their peace offer to Israel, when in fact The Saudis been making the same peace offer from over 2 decades ago, that Israel rejected.

TIME reported this back in 1981:

Fahd stated that Israel could "live in peace" with its Arab neighbors provided it permitted the Palestinian population of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to form an independent state. That condition alone made the proposal unacceptable to the Israeli government, but U.S. and European officials said that they hoped the Fahd initiative might be a first tentative step toward working out some solution to the dangerous impasse in the Middle East.

In an interview with the official Saudi Press Agency, Fahd called for: 1) Israeli withdrawal from all territory that it had occupied since the 1967 war; 2) removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and other occupied areas; 3) guarantees of freedom of worship for all religious groups within these areas; 4) recognition of the rights of 2 million Palestinian refugees — from the 1948 war as well as the 1967 war — for repatriation or compensation; 5) U.N. trusteeship over the West Bank and Gaza Strip during a transition period of several months; and 6) establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with the Arab eastern section of Jerusalem as its capital. Such an agreement, Fahd continued, should be guaranteed by the U.N. or by some of its members, presumably meaning the U.S.

More important, the agreement would assure the right of all states in the area to live with each other peacefully.

Since then of course Israel has continued the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians and the theft of Palestinian land.

When will you people get it - Israel doesn't want peace; Israel wants land.

Is that a final position or an opening to be negotiated?

"I find no evidence that the CIA had direct contact with bin Laden, but they were allies with Saudi intelligence during the 1980s. The formal alliance with Saudi intelligence was a check-writing operation in which the Congress would appropriate covert funds each year and then somebody would fly to Riyadh where Prince Turki al-Faisal would write matching-funds checks, which would go into the formal accounts of the CIA administered out of Washington, Switzerland, and elsewhere."

-Clemon's new boss, in an interview on his book 'Ghost Wars'

How many refugees have you ever met? Talked to? My wife was born in a Displaced Persons camp in Germany, the daughter of Polish Jewish refugees, who survived the Holocaust.

When anyone asks her about Palestinian refugees, she says that she understands them because her parents had to flee when the Russians entered their town as part of the infamous pact. They lost their home, their business, an 800 years of a life history in eastern Poland.

Her parents mourned their loss to their dying day.

Are Palestinians not human? Or were my in-laws only pretending to mourn while happily taking advantage of their victimhood to score political points.

In "Siach Lohamim," the classic book written in '67 by Israeli soldiers who fought the Six Day War, the soldiers repeatedly liken the fleeing Palestinians they saw to the Jews of the 30's and 40's. From the point of view of the victim, it matters not at all whether the people who drive you from your homes are the world's most evil forces (Nazis, Communists) or Israelis or, for that matters, Americans.

And now comes the lecture about how the Palestinians left of their own free will. Or that the Jewish refugees from Arab lands are no different? Or that Palestinians brought it on themselves.

All the Likud/AJC/ZOA greatest hits!

You point is irrelevant. Israel has taken in millions of refugees. How many Palestinians have the Arab Nations taken in? The Jordanians drove many of their Palestinians into Lebanon after killing quite a few. The Lebanese not only drove the Palestians into Tunsia but continue to fire rockets into a Palestinian refuguee camp.

The life of Refugees might not be anything but miserable. However, they are not going to back to the State of Israel. They possible will be able to go to a Palestinian State should the Palestinians ever stop killing each other and work out a deal with Israel rather than fire missles at Sderot.

You aren't much different than the Likud/AJC/ZOA great hits. Just from an even more bigoted prespective and even less honest.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel G's Greatest Hit number 3.

MJ:

We've had our disagreements and I genuinely am sorry if I have contributed to your decision to reduce your postings about an issue that I know you care very much about. FWIW, I look forward to reading your posts, even when they get me going, and I hope you know that I take what you write seriously.

With respect,

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

The real joke about this American arms deal with the Saudis and the other Gulf States is that all the Americans are doing is providing some nice, expensive toys to all these sheikhs for them to show off to each other when they visit. If there ever was a real security threat to the oil states, the sheikhs would run away to 5-star hotels in Paris or London and call the Americans in to fight the war for them. This is exactly what happened in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Here we have a lame-duck President stuck with the albatross of Iraq around his neck, a Palestinian leader who suffered a devastating, humiliating defeat in Gaza and a beleaguered Israeli Prime Minister stuck in single-digit popularity and people think they are going to "make peace". Dream on.

From Aluf Benn of Haaretz (www.Haaretz.com)

"For Israel, the central problem is the Qassam fire. Israel will not tolerate having its population and airport within Palestinian rocket range. Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently told officials he met that Israel would not be able to relinquish its security control over the West Bank, at least until it obtains the means of intercepting short-range rockets.

Such a project would take three to five years. Barak has no doubt that it is the IDF's presence on the mountains overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport that is preventing fire on it, rather than any self-restraint on the part of Palestinian terror organizations.

Let's face reality: In the absence of an effective Palestinian security force and an Israeli Qassam-interception system there can be no significant pullout from the West Bank and handing over territory to a Palestinian state."

Benn has been praised by Rosenberg in the past and often appears in Salon.com. Even he recognizes the continued killing of Israelis by Palestinians regardless of the name of the organization will prevent a Palestinians. Israelis cannnot afford to be as causal about the death of Israelis as are those who flock to the anti-Isaraeli threads of TPMCafe.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Hey, Bruce, you keep me honest.

Emet:

At a minimum I think you have to agree that:

1. The Saudis take a political risk, both domestically and internationally, by agreeing to sit down again with Israel; and

2. The Israelis have to understand this and take such risks into account with respect to their bargaining posture. At some point, if it looks like the bargainers are whipping a dead horse, the Saudis, like everyone around the table, are not going to stick around.

I don't understand the merits of putting an unequivocal timeline on the table either. I do think it's important, however, that all parties understand that the absence of such a line in the sand is not justification for any party to put its head in the sand and ignore reality.

Three other points which aren't directly responsive to your post but address other salient points made in this thread:

1. Clayton in his reply to you warns that the binational option becomes the most likely outcome if an agreement is not reached before January 2009. Clayton, like they used to say in that old beer commercial, if you got the time. . .my hunch is that lots of us on here would be interested in knowing why you feel that way; it's a critical point your stressing.

2. I think we have to assume, as MJ is telling us, that the Saudi intiative is flexible as to the right of return. We all get hung up on initial positions in bargaining; it's an inevitable part of the process.

3. For the same reason, bar's point down below that there is no way that the parties will agree to the settlement of millions of Palestinians in the OTs is also something that the parties have in the past and will undoubtedly address in any future negotiations.

Bruce Levine

Thanks for the thoughtful response, but I do feel some corrections are in order:
(1) What I said about the "sheikhs and 5-star hotels" was not gibberish, that is exactly what happened in 1990. This was pointed out in the US media after the Iraqis were driven out of Kuwait. The rulers came back from the hotels in Europe and started passing death sentences on "collaborators" who were stuck in Iraqi-occupied Kuwait and cooperated somehow with the conquerors and the injustice of this was commented on.
(2) I realize that I have the reputation of being an extremist in these circles, but I don't believe that it is an accurate characterization. To me, the essential dividing line I make among Jews and Israelis is whether or not they are Zionists or post-Zionists/anti-Zionists. I do NOT view the territorial issue and the settlement issue as the defining one. I oppose the creation of a Palestinian state (autonomy, whether formal or informal is another story) and strongly support the right of Jews to live throught all of Eretz Israel, just as Arabs do and strongly oppose any attempt to remove Jews from any part of Eretz Israel, just as I would oppose expelling Arabs. I support these views, NOT only because it is an ideological issue for me, but because it aligns exactly with the security and political aspects of the situation. However, I do realize that not everyone understands the ideological base of this position. As long as a Jews/Israelis support the continued Jewish identity of Israel and the preeminent need for security (something the current gov't doesn't do...see "Sederot" entry) then I view us as being on the same side.
(3) I strongly disagree with your assessment that the "extremists" on both sides are the impediment to peace. Firstly, on the Israeli side, the political "Right" is dead. There is no possibility of a "right-wing" gov't of the type that existed under Netanyahu 1996-1999 being set up for the foreseeable future. Keep in mind no gov't ever headed by Labor has ever dismantled a single Jewish settlement...only the supposedly "right-wing" Likud gov'ts have ever done that. Netanyahu has already stated that if he wins the next election , he will form a gov't with the Left. The Haredim now have a more or less formal alliance with the Left as well, and the supposedly "hard-line" Right-wing party National Religious Party/ National Union are totally ineffectual and riven with internal conflicts.
Thus there would be no problem getting a majority in the Knesset to give up anything, including the Western Wall in my opinion. So then, you may ask, why doesn't Olmert continue with his unilateral withdrawals or dismantling the supposedly "illegal" (which isn't true, by the way) "outposts"? Because the political cost would be very high, NOT in the Knesset, but rather in the public. The public is much more to the right than the Knesset makeup reflects. In fact, a good portion of the population is totally disenfranchised politically, which explains the sharp drop in voter turnout.

Secondly, regarding the Palestinian side, there is no real difference in goals between the "Moderates" and the "extremists" except over tactics and dividing up the aid money they get. Abbas has stated over and over and over that he will not compromise on the "Right of Return". This is not merely a negotiating tactic as I have pointed out. He has stated, lastly on the Naqba day commoration (May 15) that "the creation of Israel was the greatest crime in the history of humanity". Do you think he can turn around and give away important concessions after telling his people that? Arafat said he would be assassinated?
Thus, the problem is not the "hard-liners", but the very Establishment itself opposes peace with Israel on any terms.
Americans and Israelis keep projecting their own values on the Palestinians and other Arabs (the Americans did this too with the Iraqi leading to the present tragedy there). WE THINK COMPROMISE AND MAKING A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING....they do not. I read and interview with an Israeli Arab professor and he said the conflict would continue for generations. When the interviewer pointed out that this was condemning generations of his decendents to endless conflict, he replied "so be it" ...the existence of Israel was an intolerable humiliation to the Arab world and had to be eradicated, just like the Crusaders. (I do not believe that this means that there will be endless warfare, but this is not the place to discuss why I believe that).
Thus, the bottom line is that the reason there won't be peace is NOT because of the "extremists" but due to the very nature of the conflict and the Arab perception of it.

Well, I certainly think there's a place for Bar Kochba on these pages. If he wasn't here, well, we'd have to go elsewhere for our daily dose of mindless hatred, racism, and incoherent bile. Bar Kochba saves us from having to go out on to streets to find schizophrenic raving.

You can't buy that kind of stuff.

Thanks for addressing my concerns head-on Bar. I wasn't looking to encourage allegations that you are racist or a hater. That wasn't my point at all, even if you and I have some fundamental disagreements about how Israel should proceed vis-a-vis its neighbors.

bar_kochba132's point was not that the Palestinians were not suffering, but rather that that sufffering was being exploited by the Arab World.

He started by saying it was not a humanitarian problem but not in the sense that the refugees are not suffering, but rather in the sense that other solutions could have been but have not been offered.

As an analogy what if your wife and her parents in the camp were not granted citizenship anywhere else and were encouraged to look for redress via a right of return to Poland (which would be just) in such a manner that the existing culture of Poland would be oblitarated.(which would not be just but you could argue for it since Poland is basically a one religion state.)

Bar was then supported down the thread when it was pointed out that while Israel has taken in millions of involuntary refugees the same cannot be said for the Muslim countries.

It was further pointed out that in some of the camps people with very few prospects have done what people with very few prospects typically do -- formed gangs. And that thism, of course, does not endear them to their neighbors.

The Saudi proposal of reparations with some limited actual return is probably feasible IF both the Palestinians and their backers accept it AND peace is afforded to both parties.

The Israeli posters here believe that the likelihood of acceptance and peace to about the same degree that the Palestinian supporters posting her believe Israel will return land. And OBL has now made the return of any and all land anywhere once ruled by Muslims a matter for Jihad.

MJ, it does not help matters when you go off on tangential attacks and ignore the points actually being stated.

I continue to believe that it would be appropriate to recognize the sufferings of both populations and that a right of return and reparation for Jews driven from Arab lands should be recognized and allowed as a offset.