Wow, things are really moving fast. The NYT has published a must read Op-Ed by Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi ambassador, titled Veto a State, Lose an Ally stating if the U.S. doesn't support the Palestinian bid for statehood, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with the U.S. as it has in the past. Referencing the peace process as an "epic injustice" and "fruitless" al-Faisal also writes the least we can do is "step aside":
Jidda, Saudi Arabia
The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.
Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy.
.......
American support for Palestinian statehood is therefore crucial, and a veto will have profound negative consequences. In addition to causing substantial damage to American-Saudi relations and provoking uproar among Muslims worldwide, the United States would further undermine its relations with the Muslim world, empower Iran and threaten regional stability. Let us hope that the United States chooses the path of justice and peace.
He certainly doesn't mince words. Turki al-Faisal was once Director General of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency and is the nephew of King Abdullah.
And this is from Ami Kaufman at +972: "King Abdullah II of Jordan used some harsh words against Israel yesterday:"
“Jordan and Palestine’s future (prospects) are stronger than Israel today and that it is the Israeli who is afraid now. When I was in the United States, an Israeli intellectual talked to me and said that what is going on in the Arab world is in the best interest of Israel; but I answered him and said: on the contrary; your situation today is harder than ever before.
“We support the Palestinian people right to a Palestinian state; our political stance did not and will not change and that the alternative homeland issue must not be part of the discussion.”
(hat tip Anna Rogers)
These two, the Saudi and the Jordanian monarchy, are merely fearful of losing their grip on power. They realize that domestically, their position in power sits on quick sand.
At the same time, let us not forget that all the bluster and posturing is aimed at appeasing the local population. These leaders have always sought to appease their own subjects — by paying them lip service — while working behind the scenes to please the US and their masters in Washington.
Yet, Jordanians, Egyptians and Saudis alike have grown tired of their leaders’ lip service. They have grown tired of the talk and are demanding actions.
Avi, I agree.
World leaders are pretty much all in the same club. It is where most of their commonalities lie.
there is no way in hell the US will vote for the Palestinian bid for statehood. And clearly Israel and the Israeli lobby do not care about the national security of the US and not of Israel based on the 67 border.
Still headed for a cliff
Sounds like he would be satisfied with a U.S. abstention.
Although I would be willing to bet that that won’t happen either.
it sounds like he’s implying that yes.
The only remaining negotiations over the UN bid are for EU votes that the PA would be wise to ignore.
There are a lot of rumors that Ashton wants an agreement from the Palestinians they they will not take Israel to the international courts in exchange for US abstention in the General Assembly (who cares?); continued PA funding; and recognition from the EU at an appropriate time in the future. All the Palestinians would receive in such a deal would be another empty hortatory resolution. It is an insult that she would even make such a proposal.
The requirement to cooperate with Israel on security to reduce terrorism came from the General Assembly resolution ES-10/15. It endorsed the conclusions in the 2004 advisory opinion in the ICJ Wall Case:
link to unispal.un.org
Care to take a guess which side lived-up to those requirements? That resolution doesn’t require the Palestinians to accept blood money to let criminals off the hook for crimes against their general population. Hopefully, they will tell Ashton to drop dead or at least stop wasting her breath.
It’s hard to believe that we are still discussing this B.S., since all of the key provisions have already been approved in earlier General Assembly resolutions that were adopted by 2/3rds of the members present and voting:
*The General Assembly has affirmed that Palestinian statehood is a matter of self-determination that is not subject to the peace process or to any veto. The EU Council has also stated that “Palestinian statehood is not subject to any veto.”
*General Assembly resolution 43/177 acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine. link to unispal.un.org
*The last General Assembly resolution 52/250 (1998) on the observer status of Palestine at the UN noted that Palestine was a full member of a number of organizations that are only open to states – and that a government had been established in a portion of the territory of Palestine. link to unispal.un.org
*General Assembly resolution ES-10/14, which requested the Advisory Opinion, had already stated that the Armistice lines were the basis for negotiations.
link to unispal.un.org
There have also been the yearly resolutions recognizing the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people that I’ve cited in the past., e.g. link to alhaq.org
It’s hard to believe that we are still discussing this B.S., since all of the key provisions have already been approved in earlier General Assembly resolutions that were adopted by 2/3rds of the members present and voting:
*The General Assembly has affirmed that Palestinian statehood is a matter of self-determination that is not subject to the peace process or to any veto. The EU Council has also stated that “Palestinian statehood is not subject to any veto.”
i know this. when lysias said ‘sounds like he would be satisfied’ i took it to mean wrt SA’s warning, it would satisfy to not “force a deepening split between our two countries ” if the US stepped aside from the peace process and not hinder Saudi, European and moderate Arab efforts to advance Palestinian rights at the United Nations.
it sounds like if everything passes the warning stands, it will force a split between SA and the US. that’s how i read it.
The Arab despots are concerned about Iran and Turkey gaining favor with the Arab Springers on the Street across, increasingly all of the ME.
In short the various Muburaks are running scared of their own people and the internet grows the solidarity they fear. Yet I don’t think the US government will read and adapt to this clear warning from Jordan and SA that things can no longer be the same on the playground, no matter how much aid the US gives the despots and Israel. And the whole ME knows Uncle Sam’s own people are financially strapped and jobless & foreclosed. Turkey is in Egypt right now, and Iran is in Turkey–trying to create a new, more balanced approach, one the US should have worked for all along if it had been acting in its own best interests. How many countries now support the Pals at the UN? Russia too now.
if the US stepped aside from the peace process and not hinder Saudi, European and moderate Arab efforts to advance Palestinian rights at the United Nations.
Yes. I believe the Arab Quartet gave Obama two years to produce a settlement and that they already intended to withdraw their support for the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative in the event of a breakdown long before the Arab Spring heated things-up. They are ready to hitch their wagon to another star.
Turki al-Faisal published a two page Op-Ed in the Washington Post after Obama’s speech on Middle East which basically said the US and Israel can no longer be allowed to delegitimize the Palestinians and that the US needs to step aside:
link to washingtonpost.com
The Arab League have agreed to sponsor and introduce the membership application in the Security Council. These editorials signal the fact that they are not afraid to force Obama into a showdown.
citizen, i was thinking the same thing.. the arab spring is scaring some of these folks.. meanwhile the usa and israel are going to be the last ones to help along any arab spring… it is not in their best interests apparently!~ things are changing fast in the world and it freaks a lot of these folks out who are really only interested in maintaining the corrupt power they continue to have.. this would definitely include the usa…
It’s the Saudis, of course, that really matter in this discussion. Sure, al-Faisal is talking tough, but he and the Saudi rulers have their own people to contend with, who are not Israeli supporters. The Saudis also possess a considerable amount of black gold. Whether these threats (he would term them “warnings”) will become real we shall learn soon enough.
“It’s the Saudis, of course, that really matter in this discussion. The Saudis also possess a considerable amount of black gold.”
It isn’t just the oil.
The Saudis are much more of an ally than Israel.
The US has huge military bases on Saudi soil, and Saudi forces and US forces have worked together in war.
It was the Saudis who pulled US chestnuts out of the fire in Bahrain.
If the Saudis go cold on the US, and Egypt and Turkey keep their present attitudes, the US is going to have a very short list of big hitters in the area.
Exactly, RoHa.
RoHa,
I thought we only had a limited presence in SA, now…around 300 personnel.
Not a single person has come up with a remotely coherent argument as to why Palestinian statehood is a bad idea.All they can offer is vague threats, hysterical predictions and the nonsense that it will any way preclude further negotiations, which the Israelis continually pretend they want, despite having had 40 years to negotiate a settlement, with numerous peace plans on the table. Israel hasn’t even had the courtesy to respond to them, pretending that somehow they don’t exist. Israel is looking worse and worse to the outside world, having failed to offer any good reason for opposing the same strategy as they benefitted from in the past. If they actually believe in a two state solution (which is doubtful) then why not assist the process? (I know, it sounds a ridiculous idea)
Ali Abunimeh came up with an argument against the statehood initiative, that the PA had exceeded its authority and that the statehood initiative would preclude Palestinian legislative approval of borders and relations, and would preclude Palestinian and diaspora Palestinian ratification of any proposals. In other words an end run.
Further, I don’t know if he articulated this criticism, but others have, that the ratification petition, in addressing borders out of the context of other Palestinian demands, would diminish the effort for right of return, and full civil rights for Arab Israelis.
Its a dilemma for all.
For the US, Israel, PA. Arab league, Jordan, Egypt, the establishment of a sovereign Palestine at the 67 borders is a fulfillment. It requires negotiation to implement, and reconcile pending geographic questions.
But, it succeeds. As Bernard Avishai mentioned yesterday at a talk he gave in Amherst, MA, even the right of return is reconcilable and could and should follow the Palestinian ratification.
The Israeli and US posturing in opposition to a plane in flight, is misguided. Both should get ahead of the momentum so that the result is a peaceful transition ending with both communities confidently standing, not at war, not escalating animosity, not drawing in circles and circles of third parties into conflict.
Most Palestinians, including Abuminah, supported a 2-state solution way back in the day when it was actually possible and there weren’t half a million Israeli settlers there.
Little negotiation is required for a 2 state solution. We’ve known the contours of it for decades. It exists in international law. All Israel has to do is pull out over a certain period of time, in a phased manner. The problem is that the Israeli government has shown over the past 20 years (and longer) that it does not want to pull it, it wants the whole land, just not the people, in a continuation of the ideals of zionism going back a century. There’s only 22% of the land left to Palestinians for their own state. When is Israel going to say that what they have taken from Palestine and Palestinian is enough?
Hmm, Israel pulled out of Sinai for peace, I know, I was there. Israeli pulled out of Gaza, we know how that’s going. Before building the Defense Wall, terrorists were entering Israel daily or firing at residents of Jerusalem nightly. So, based on that logic, Israel should pull out of the West Bank and things will be so good that even Hamas and Fatah will get along!
Israel had no right in Gaza in the first place; it has no right in OT; it ignores these simple facts and keeps grabbing more land. longliveisrael, you don’t know anything even though you were there. Keep sleeping.
Ali Abunimeh came up with an argument against the statehood initiative, that the PA had exceeded its authority and that the statehood initiative would preclude Palestinian legislative approval of borders and relations, and would preclude Palestinian and diaspora Palestinian ratification of any proposals. In other words an end run.
Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO. It was the PLO Executive Committee that approved the UN statehood bid:
link to jpost.com
Under the terms of the 2003 Quartet Road Map, recognition of statehood and UN membership happen in Phase II and final status issues, including negotiations on refugees, permanent boundaries, and East Jerusalem happen in Phase III.
Not a single person has come up with a remotely coherent argument as to why Palestinian statehood is a bad idea.
Sure they have. The Israeli press have finally admitted that Palestine will be able to put the Zionist leadership on trial in the Hague or in many other criminal courts. That would be good for the Palestinians, but bad for Israel.
Obama has pledged to fight the bid up until the last moment. The EU is trying to condition half-assed recognition at an appropriate time in the future upon guarantees the Palestinians won’t prosecute Israelis. The EU obviously realizes such a thing would be possible, or else they wouldn’t have to bother.
Even Obama said that he believed the most likely scenario was for the Palestinians to seek to upgrade their representation from current observer status to non-member state in the UNGA. link to news.smh.com.au
UN Ambassador Susan Rice is still playing dumb (unless of course she’s not acting):
link to youtube.com!
Similar Washington Post Op Ed on June 10 by Turki
link to washingtonpost.com
I can’t stand these monarchs, because I know that they’re merely posturing before their dictator-weary subjects who’re fed up with the greediness that keeps them going back to the U.S. trough while abandoning the Palestinians into the clutches of Zionists for years. Who’re they kidding?
I wouldn’t be so sure…the Arab States can act together when they feel like it and they get pissed enough.
The fragile state of the US economy now seems the perfect time for them to cut off the oil spigot and spend prices skyward. I remember very well how the embargo and rationing affected my business in ’73. Maybe some others aren’t old enough to remember it.
The US would start s****** bricks if OAPEC did it now.
‘The 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries or the OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC, plus Egypt, Syria and Tunisia) proclaimed an oil embargo.
This was “in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military” during the Yom Kippur war. It lasted until March 1974.[1] With the U.S. actions seen as initiating the oil embargo and the long term possibility of high oil prices, disrupted supply and recession, a strong rift was created within NATO. Additionally, some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from the U.S. Middle East policy. Arab oil producers had also linked the end of the embargo with successful U.S. efforts to create peace in the Middle East, which complicated the situation. To address these developments, the Nixon Administration began parallel negotiations with both Arab oil producers to end the embargo, and with Egypt, Syria, and Israel to arrange an Israeli pull back from the Sinai and the Golan Heights after the fighting stopped. By January 18, 1974, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was sufficient to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974. By May, Israel agreed to withdraw from some parts of the Golan Heights.[1]
I remember the oil embargo well; the economic impact of it still lingers to this day, and you are right, if OPEC did it again the US would go nutz, absolutely nutz under current economic circumstances. Can you imagine long lines at the gas pumps again, coupled with the current dire financial situation of so many Americans? This time around the average American might actually dimly realize that all politics are local, and most especially any involving Israel and Oil,
Hard to believe but the Arab Spring is moving the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies too. They seem be taking to heart the Mubarrak lesson — get to close to the Israelis and die!
This also means the Jordanians will have to deal with million man march against the Israeli embassy very carefully. No live ammunition against the angry crowds that may show up to assault that outpost of the Israeli occupation regime.
I read arguments why Palestinian statehood is a bad idea. Were they coherent? In a way, yes. If you had a course of logic, you may be familiar with modus iudaicus:
assume A, and assume that A implies B, does B follow?
well, only of it is good for Jews.
Honestly, it is a bit racist to say “modus iudaicus”, variations of that rule of logic are perhaps, in aggregate, more popular than modus ponens. Take “modus saudicus”. Prince Alturki proudly states that his country helped the monarchy in Bahrain and is instrumental in isolating and, eventually toppling vile dictatorship in Syria, AND refuses to have relationship with regime in Iraq. For starters, morally, the superiority of the monarchy in Bahrain over Syria is not that obvious, given the limited number of atrocities that can be committed on a smallish island. Going after medical personel was an original touch in Bahrain. Now, if you believe that monarchs rule by the Grace of God, unlike lowborn dictators, then perhaps it makes sense. But alienating Iraq (with the mistreatment of fellow Shia in Bahrain and other slights) may be exactly what will save Assad. At least Prince did not even hint that Saudis could cut down oil production if miffed.
ToivoS wrote:
“Hard to believe but the Arab Spring is moving the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies too. ”
Their Arab Spring is coming…
>> Let us hope that the United States chooses the path of justice and peace.
Peace AND justice instead of “peace, not ‘justice’” – what a great idea! Let’s hope the US does choose that path. Better yet, let’s hope the US stays the hell out of it altogether.
The ’67 border are, presumably, well-defined. There’ the starting point. Two sovereign states, negotiating as equals, mediated by a neutral third party or group of parties (America need not apply), working toward a just and mutually-beneficial peace.
Everything on the table (as I see it), and let the sincere negotiations begin.
as the gulf monarchs race to stay ahead of the masses, will they get trampled?
Look at the map. They both must know something about how the balance of power would break if tested. American forces in Iraq would be almost completely surrounded and land-locked. The map shows an interesting situation if the following countries deny US fly-over rights:
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Turkey
Turkmenistan (allows non-military cargo to Afghanistan)
Uzbekistan (already told Americans to get out, 2005)
And if Saudi Arabia pulls their help in
Afghanistan
Yemen
It certainly begs the question: how valuable is Israel to the US? What do we gain/lose?
(Last year China got a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, to China that will soon feed 1/2 China’s gas needs. China supports Palestinian statehood.)
No doubt we are going to act stupidly. This shows why:
Confessions of a GOP Operative Who Left “the Cult”: 3 Things Everyone Must Know About the Lunatic-Filled Republican Party
By Mike Lofgren, TruthOut.org
Posted on September 5, 2011, Printed on September 12, 2011
link to alternet.org
It’s up to you to decide if Saudi Arabia’s blackmail of the United States is a good thing. Because that’s what this is: support a Palestinian state at the UN, or we’ll support your enemies.
Tough language coming from the fascist country of bin Laden.
You insist that Israeli blackmail of the United States is a good thing. What, are you just discriminating against Arab police states?
Yeah we all know your tune will change the next time gas prices go down at the pump.
Oh, and Israel and the U.S. don’t use blackmail? LOL!
Israel to U.S. Congress: Push our policies or you’ll never be re-elected again.
Tough language coming from a pariah state holding millions of people captive under the Occupation and oppression while it steals their land and deprives them of their human rights.
U.S.: Drop Palestinian statehood or we’ll pull all aid and funding. Vote against Palestinian statehood or we’ll stop doing business with you and pull funding.
While it’s true that the Saudis are much more important to U.S. interests in the Middle East than Israel, they also love their oil money and wouldn’t really want to shake the boat all that much, after all is said and done.
How, exactly, that supposed to work?? Does the US suddenly stop buying oil?? Really? The US?? And, geez, if they did, that would be such a problem for the Saudis how, exactly? I guess it might take them 10 whole minutes to replace the US Embassy’s phone number with the Chinese Embassy’s number on all the speed dials. But beyond that…
US gets most of its oil from Canada, not ME (Europe’s main source; hence Brits, French big role in Libya?), but yes, Saudi has plenty of takers for its oil. Have to check why 73 Arab Oil embargo was lifted….
I am not sure if a threat to cut oil production by some percentage can be correctly called “blackmail”. In the short run, it would increase the revenue because of price increase.
Would it be a good thing? I think yes. First, Americans really need a reminder that policies DO HAVE negative consequences. Gasoline at 5 dollars per gallon would be a clear message. Second, Saudis could be “sanctioned” by decreased sales of most shiny weapons which would be good for the population of the kingdom (rulers are maniacal collectors of military hardware). Third, Americans may need reminder that moderately priced gasoline will not last forever (this is actually a message that Saudis want to avoid).