Sharon willing to meet Saudis

[NewsGuy]

From the JPost (http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/02/24/LatestNews/LatestNews.44013.html):

Sharon said to be willing to meet Saudis, discuss plan

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told American officials he may be willing to meet with Saudi officials about their peace proposal, Channel 2 reported.

Sharon reportedly said that if the Saudis are serious about their plan - which proposes that Arab states will fully recognize Israel and normalize relations in exchange for Israel's full withdrawal to pre-1967 borders - then he is willing to allow Saudi officials to present the plan to him.

* * *

Another example of Ariel Sharon putting it on the line, working for peace, or at least to expose the Saudi propaganda.

I wonder what royal excuse will we hear now from his "excellency", the Saudi terrorist-sponsoring prince of petro-dollars.

"Sorry, can't travel to Israel, becuase my car ran out of gas?" :D

[NewsGuy]

Came across this editorial in the JPost (http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/02/25/Opinion/Editorial.44027.html). Thought it might be of interest:

Though the Saudis are often portrayed as incompetent at public relations, this view must be examined in light of what is so far a PR coup. With the help of journalist Tom Friedman and his newspaper, The New York Times, the Saudis have generated positive interest from American and Israeli foreign ministers in a proposal that has not yet been made, and exists only as reports of conversations.

The beauty of this, as Friedman himself implied, is that the Saudis can get credit for a proposal without making it, then blame their lack of actual follow-through on Israeli or American actions. PR artistry aside, this non-proposal has already gotten enough attention that its purported substance must be addressed.

The idea, according to Friedman and Henry Siegman, another interlocutor writing in the Times, is that the Saudis will completely normalize relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. Before dwelling on the nuances of the idea, what is striking about it is how little it takes to pass as moderation and openness on the part of the Arab world.

...

Even if a Sadat-style visit is too much to expect from the Saudi royal family, there are many no less important steps that would demonstrate a degree of seriousness. The first would be to cut off relations with Hamas as dramatically as the Saudis cut off the PLO for supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

[Negev]

this saudi stuff is just for gullible people who want to make believe that the saudis are not the financers behind arab terrorists who attacked america. like blowing smoke to hide from the blame.

after paying for terrorist weapons and training for all these years, all of a sudden the saudis are going to be the model of peace.

remember, all you saudis and european oil servants, just saying it doesn't make it true. we're not fooled by this.

[takeo]

By DAN PERRY

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel said Monday it is exploring with interest a tentative Saudi proposal that calls for an Israeli pullout from virtually all the territories it occupied in the 1967 Middle East war in return for comprehensive peace.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has fiercely opposed a total pullout. But he knows Israelis are despondent over 17 months of dead-end conflict and eager for a ray of hope. The Saudi proposal offers two things Israel craves: Broad acceptance by Arab states and a negotiating partner beyond Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

However, any discussion of significant concessions to Palestinians could undermine Sharon's governing coalition - a patchwork of parties with widely divergent positions on the land-for-peace idea.

The Palestinians and moderate Arabs have welcomed the Saudi idea, and Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday it was an important step he hoped would be fleshed out in the next few weeks.


Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, told The Associated Press on Monday that Israel was "trying to find out through the United States and other sources ... if this is a real proposal."

"If indeed a reasonable offer is presented ... that will guarantee not just that Israel gives back territory but that real, true normalization will develop - I think you can restore the confidence in peace because most of the people want peace," Gissin said.

Trying to build momentum, Israel's President Moshe Katsav said Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - who floated the proposal in a recent interview with The New York Times - should come to Israel for talks, or alternatively receive him in Riyadh.

However, Katsav has a mainly ceremonial role, and the real power rests with Sharon. When Katsav wanted to address the Palestinian parliament recently, Sharon blocked the plan. In any case, Saudi Arabia has refused to have any contact with Israel while its dispute with the Palestinians remains unresolved.

One possibility being discussed was for the Saudis to raise the proposal at next month's Arab League summit in Lebanon, but Palestinian officials said they were assured that would not happen unless Israel ended Arafat's three-month confinement to the West Bank town of Ramallah.

Details of the Saudi proposal remained sketchy, but it was clearly very different from the limited interim settlement that Sharon has said he would pursue with the Palestinians if and when violence subsides.

Sharon has for decades been a leading patron of the West Bank and Gaza settlements where some 200,000 Israelis live. A near-total pullout would require many, if not most, of them to be removed.

As described by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the Saudi ideas were similar to the proposal made last year by former President Clinton and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak - which was fiercely opposed by Sharon, then Israel's opposition leader.

Barak proposed a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with a foothold in East Jerusalem. Arafat held out for more land and a "right of return" for war refugees, which Israel feared could bring millions of Palestinians into its territory.

Talks broke down amid violence that has to date killed 994 people on the Palestinian side and 285 on the Israeli side.

Gissin said Israel wanted to know the current Saudi position on refugees and Jerusalem.

But Gideon Meir, a top Foreign Ministry official, said the prime concern was whether a possible deal would include not just Palestinian but Arab League endorsement.

"The highlight is that Arab world will embrace it," Meir said. "We take it seriously... It's a tremendous opportunity for Israel - tremendous. It's interesting and important, and I hope it's more than just in a newspaper."

Some hawkish politicians were less enthusiastic.

Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert, who is a member of Sharon's Likud Party, ruled out the redivision of Jerusalem implicit in the Saudi proposal and said, while the ideas were a step forward, "we will have to wait until they agree to something more acceptable to Israel."

Also unclear is whether the Saudis were also asking for an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights - most probably needed to bring Syria into the fold. Damascus lost the strategic plateau to Israel in 1967.

The Saudi ideas last week won endorsements in Egypt and Jordan - the only two Arab nations to have full peace with Israel. Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said in remarks carried by the official Petra news agency that they were "extremely positive" and could "break the stalemate in the peace process."

And in a statement to the Palestinian news agency Wafa, Arafat said the "important positions" presented by Abdullah "represent a clear support and push for the peace efforts" toward creation of a Palestinian state while giving "security for the state of Israel."

[victot]

maaan...
i hope this works...
followed by i hope the arabs really keep the peac e after this... (as well as israel...)

[McSceptic]

European oil servants?

It's not the Europeans who are propping up these dingbat Gulf states. Nor the Europeans who smile and turn the other cheek when Saudi militants kill US troops asleep in their barracks.

But I'd agree that the proposal looks like a smokescreen to cover previous Saudi misdeeds in funding fundamentalist groups.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
It's not the Europeans who are propping up these dingbat Gulf states. Nor the Europeans who smile and turn the other cheek when Saudi militants kill US troops asleep in their barracks.

You're 100% correct about that. The US policy of the Clinton administration was disasterous becuase it sought to keep the oil supply flowing to the US (at 1/4 of the price being paid by Europe), instead of taking care of the terrorists properly.

I happen to think that if the US would have reacted strongly to the Khobar Towers bombing, which may have ultimately involved taking down the Ayatollahs of Iran and cracking down on the Saudis, the Syrians and the Lebanese, then maybe the Sept. 11 attacks would not have happened. For this, Clinton's administartion is at fault.

Of course one of the main pressures of the US not to carpet bomb Southern Lebanon and Iran, where those terrorists originated from, is European pressure.

It seems that every time the US talks about eliminating terrorism and the regimes that make terrorism possible, the Europeans start a diplomatic offensive against the US.

Maybe today's terrorist bombing in Italy will give the Europeans a different picture.

[McSceptic]

Europeans tend to rather sceptical about the value of carpet bombing. We've already tried it on ourselves.

The US experience isn't too hot either, Viet Nam? Bombing peasants in the Bekaa valley is only likely to raise another generation of fighters. Now bombing a few presidential compounds (or better yet seizing their offshore bank accounts and denying them spare parts for their Mercedes)? The most successful US action in this regard was the (relatively) precision bombing of Libya.

I think a small rock to the head is better than a large rock to the foot.

But back to the topic, would Israelis and their supporters accept an Israel strictly within the 1967 line if peace was absolutely guaranteed? (I realise we're talking hypotheticals here).

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
But back to the topic, would Israelis and their supporters accept an Israel strictly within the 1967 line if peace was absolutely guaranteed? (I realise we're talking hypotheticals here).


Maybe 90-95% yes, but I don't believe that 100% will work.

The realities of the past 35 years might have made it impossible to go back to terms which, even then, were poorly designed and arbitrary.

There are different facts on the ground today.

But considering what has been going on, 90-95% is pretty good.

The bigger question is what Israel will actually get in exchange for giving up so much land. How will there be compliance forced on the Arabs after they get the Israeli land?

Experience has shown that the land-for-peace was never enforced.

In the case of Egypt, Israel gave up nearly 50% of its land and today there is no normalization of relations, nor is there even full diplomatic relations, yet Israel cannot get its land back.

In the case of Jordan, Israel made its agreements, and also, no normalization nor full diplomatic relations.

In the case of Lebanon, Israel gave up all the land (although without an pgreement) and still gets missiles shot into Israeli towns and a massing of weapons of mass destruction at Israel's Northern border.

So, in addition to focusing on what Israel must give up, it is important to figure out how to force the Arabs to keep their end of the bargain, as well.

[takeo]

I happen to think that if the US would have reacted strongly to the Khobar Towers bombing, which may have ultimately involved taking down the Ayatollahs of Iran and cracking down on the Saudis, the Syrians and the Lebanese, then maybe the Sept. 11 attacks would not have happened. For this, Clinton's administartion is at fault.

Actually Bin laden lives in afghanistan, bombing iran, saoudi arabia, Syria and Libanon would not only enrage the entire Islamic world(because direct support for Israel), it would cut of America from all Middle-East petrol, it would be senceless (none of these states financed terorism against the US) and for sure the successors of the Saoudi princes would be a lot WORSE unless the us would keep saoudi arabia as a colony (and the entire Arabic world). Of course the hatred produced by this actions would be a huge source of terrorism and probably be the end of a long-eterm war, and the Arab world would have the sympathy of the entire world in their resistance to us-aggression.
besides attacking Iran means nuclear war.

HEY what do you expect, eternal sympathy towards israel because it gave back their land? LAND FOR PEACE, remember
is there war with Jordan?
is there war with Egypt?
Even without a treaty in Libanon it got MUCH LESS violence.
And israel should give everything, unless the palestinians agree to give them some parts out of security reasons or because a lot of settlements have been build there near Israel (of course in return for some part of israel near palestine). they will never agree however that Israel keeps the jordan valley, far away from Israel.
I think the plan is a good plan, and its great that both parties have expressed their sattisfaction. and the concept of a broad arab recognition in return for stopping the occupation is great too. But of course the PA has to be involved too, as well as Syria, Libanon and Europe/the US. of course it will be difficult to convince the ultra-hawks in Israel that the Westbank and gaza are no part of Israel, but if they would ruin this chance for peace i think the israeli voters won't appreciate their behavior.
actually if Sharon would accept such a plan that goes further than Camp David (that's why the palestinians would likey accept) than it would be a 180 degrees turn.

[NewsGuy]

"(none of these states financed terorism against the US) and for sure the successors of the Saoudi princes would be a lot WORSE"

Wrong. The Khobar Towers were blown up by Hizbullah, with Saudi accomplices and Iranian support, financing and training.
Here's some reading material for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/




"Of course the hatred produced by this actions would be a huge source of terrorism"

Well, today, the US strategy is one of deterrence, to make it clear to countries that harbor the terrorist that they will be bombed and their government kicked out, like the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think it will be an effective strategy.

As for the hatred of the Arab world against the US, it exists already. Now it's time to clean up those terrorists countries and get rid of their brutal dictators, or force them to expell and stop financing the Islamic terrorist groups.





"besides attacking Iran means nuclear war."

Some would say that NOT attacking Iran will lead to nuclear war just as soon as Russia and North Korea are done selling the Iranian nuclear reactors and enriched uranium.



"HEY what do you expect, eternal sympathy towards israel because it gave back their land? LAND FOR PEACE, remember
is there war with Jordan?
is there war with Egypt?"

Hey, what I expect is land for peace. That's right. No sympathy is needed or wanted. But that peace for which land was traded, specifically calls for normalization of relations and full diplomatic exchange. This has not happened.

More than that, many have said that Israel got a cold peace with Egypt. I disagree. I think they got a cold war.



"Even without a treaty in Libanon it got MUCH LESS violence."

Occasional missiles fired into Jewish cities and stockpiling of Iranian midrange missiles are not acceptable.




"they will never agree however that Israel keeps the jordan valley, far away from Israel."

Maybe you wouldn't think so, but Arafat agreed to the land issues at Camp David 2000. It must be interesting being even more Palestinian than Arafat, takeo?



"actually if Sharon would accept such a plan that goes further than Camp David (that's why the palestinians would likey accept) than it would be a 180 degrees turn. "

Right. I don't think he will, unless there is a referendum in Israel and the public decides so, which I highly doubt for survival reasons.

The only valuable piece of information in the Saudi proposal-maneuver is that they threw the rights of the palestinians to return to Israel, right out the window. I am glad that at least the Arabs are starting to understand that it will be that way.

[takeo]

Well, I read the article, it's the first time i hear of the "iranian connection", at the time i heard or remembered the suspects were connected to Bin laden (as in the case of the embassies in africa). Anyway even Colin Powell says there is no evidence linking the Iranians and i think whole this is a part to legitimise the hardly-criticised "axis of evil" speech. By the way Iran is a more liberal country than it was 5 years ago, by this agressive statements the us is reversing this.

"As for the hatred of the Arab world against the US, it exists already. Now it's time to clean up those terrorists countries and get rid of their brutal dictators, or force them to expell and stop financing the Islamic terrorist groups. "



So in fact you want the colonisation to extend to all arabic countries, nice thoughts...
The hatred exists because the us-policy of dominating a region is already in place, however the us is safe as long as puppet-dictators as the saoudi sheiks and mubarak are in power.
Removing them would be an act of unimaginable stupidity and unite the whole arabic world, Nasser never succeeded but you would succeed (sharon is doing his best too, i should give him some credentials as well :D )

"Some wuld say that NOT attacking Iran will lead to nuclear war just as soon as Russia and North Korea are done selling the Iranian nuclear reactors and enriched uranium. "

Hey, iran did help the us in its fight against the taliban and al-quaida, why would they attack the US? Irancould never win against the us, but it is a strong warning against anyone trying to attack Iran. (by the way why do you think the us only bombs iraq and not Iran or North-Korea? they are chicken, and of course in the case of north-korea they fear the chinese, which is very wise)

Well, Egypt and jordan have recognised Israel, didn't they? They still recognise Israel but retreated their ambassadors (still?) because they don't agree with the Israeli policy towards the palestinians, that is their right to do so, even a cold war is possile, as long as they don't attack israel or let terror groups operate from its soil. Peace doesn't mean excellent diplomatic relations but just peace and co-existance. If more could be possible that would be better, but they are not obliged.

"Right. I don't think he will, unless there is a referendum in Israel and the public decides so, which I highly doubt for survival reasons.
The only valuable piece of information in the Saudi proposal-maneuver is that they threw the rights of the palestinians to return to Israel, right out the window. I am glad that at least the Arabs are starting to understand that it will be that way."

So actually Sharon is just reacting positively to this plan to appease the americans and the israeli left-wing, and will try to fool the world that he wants "peace" but will do everything possible to undermine the plan, right? Actually he doesn't want to return the occupied territories, he wants war (as you too). But than please stop crying about all the victims of this war, it's all your decision!
And the plan was secret so not every detail is revealed, according to the article i mentioned the right to return is concluded in the plan, but not exactly certain how it would be solved, maybe still open for discussion. already the peace is endangering the israeli right-wing, and as i said peace will mean infighting between hawks(Olmert, etc.) and realists(Katzav).

[McSceptic]

If the Israelis were prepared to give up the settlements in order to make peace (and accepting the caveats about ensuring compliance on the other side) then that could make a big difference. At least it would suggest a compromise was possible.

What much of the rest of the world nervous is that Israel is about some religious project to ressurect some vanished, and quite possibly mythical, kingdom. Politics is about the possible, not the fantastical.

[takeo]

exactly

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
What much of the rest of the world nervous is that Israel is about some religious project to ressurect some vanished, and quite possibly mythical, kingdom. Politics is about the possible, not the fantastical.

Where did you get that idea from? I've never heard it brought up before.

The world is afraid of Israel bringing back a mythical kingdom? Sounds like a Lord of the Rings sequel, not reality, IMO.

[McSceptic]

Really? Isn't a big part of motivation for the settlements to recreate the biblical land of Israel?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
Really? Isn't a big part of motivation for the settlements to recreate the biblical land of Israel?

No.

They correctly think they have the right to live in the biblical cities where their forefathers lived, but that's very different from wanting to establish some mythical biblical kingdom.

[takeo]

"They correctly think they have the right to live in the biblical cities where their forefathers lived, but that's very different from wanting to establish some mythical biblical kingdom."

Well for what other reason would those settlers want to live in the West-bank or Gaza? Because they think it belongs to them because this is the mytical homeland they want to resurrect. Just read the posts of watcher or raven.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Well for what other reason would those settlers want to live in the West-bank or Gaza? Because they think it belongs to them because this is the mytical homeland they want to resurrect. Just read the posts of watcher or raven.

What other reason do they really need? They want to live in the land which they believe is theirs, and correctly so.

The only thing that is "mythical" is the Palestinian myths that the Arabs have any claim to the land.

I am not surprised at all to see that the Jewish residents who see Arab squatters living on the site where the Jewish patriarchs are buried (Hebron) want to also live there.

[NewsGuy]

Anyway, I am glad to see that even the Saudis don't think that any more Palestinian refugees should be allowed into Israel.

Of course, this great revelation was offered to arch-terrorist Arafat by Israeli PM Barak at Camp David 2000, and naturally turned down by Arafat becuase it did not sufficiently guarantee the destruction of Israel.

I would be amazed if the Palestinians and other Arab countries like Syria and France don't reject the Saudi offer very soon.

[cerulean]

From what I can see, there is absolutely nothing new in this plan. There is no wide-ranging commitment to peace towards Israel on the part of Arab countries. I can't possibly understand why so many in the media are excited by it.

[takeo]

"What other reason do they really need? They want to live in the land which they believe is theirs, and correctly so.
he only thing that is "mythical" is the Palestinian myths that the Arabs have any claim to the land.
I am not surprised at all to see that the Jewish residents who see Arab squatters living on the site where the Jewish patriarchs are buried (Hebron) want to also live there."

as shown in the other treat with statistics the palestinians are no squatters but lived there since the 19th century and most likely for 2000 years. They have as much or even more rights than the jewish people to live there. anyway if Jews want to live there it should happen by the laws of the majority living there(the palestinians), not by imposing themselves.
Anyway israel became internationally recognised as the Jewish homeland after the arab countries declared war on it, a situation that is now irreversible and recognised by the world. The jews had their homeland, and for the zionists it wasn't important to have all the Jewish Holy places included in this homeland. Yet israel declared war in 1967 and took the other parts as well, the original people living there stayed where they were (to the frustration of Israel) so at that time the problems for israel began, so it tried to import its own population (only religious fanatics were prepared to live there) but this made the problem even bigger.
The christians have Jerusalem as their Holy capital, do you think that this gives the christians the right to live in west-jerusalem without recognition by Israel or by the palestinians and impose their own laws???????????????
this is the same the israeli squatters are doing in the Westbank and Gaza (by the way according to watcher Gaza never belonged to the Holy jewish land).



I'm sure the refugee-question is included too, but left for negociation. The new part in this plan is broad Arab recognition of Israel, which means an additional security for Israel it won't be attacked and Palestinian extremists who would oppose the plan won't find refuge in neighbouring Arab countries. And also new is that Israel will have to withdraw 100% unless the Palestinians want to do some minor concessions(so unlike Oslo where everything was left for interpretation).

[NewsGuy]

" I'm sure the refugee-question is included too, but left for negociation. "

Don't be so sure. Syria today has been complaining that this provision is missing. Maybe they will add it later to make sure to torpedo any chance of agreement, but it was not included originally.



"The new part in this plan is broad Arab recognition of Israel,"

Nothing new here. This was required by UN resolutions 242 and 383.




" which means an additional security for Israel it won't be attacked and Palestinian extremists who would oppose the plan won't find refuge in neighbouring Arab countries."

Peace agreements with the Arabs so far have meant nothing. They have all been broken by the Arabs consistently. The only thing that will mean security for Israel is the IDF. Although the war on terrorism is still being fought, the IDF has been very good at preventing existential threats form the Arabs.



"And also new is that Israel will have to withdraw 100% unless the Palestinians want to do some minor concessions(so unlike Oslo where everything was left for interpretation)."

Nothing new here either. Oslo left the negotiations fo rlater stages after a cease-fire and confidence measures were implemented and after gradual land-gifts from Israel to the Palestinians. But the final land agreements were expected to yield about 94% of the 1967 borders to the Arabs. Same with this Saudi PR proposal.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
From what I can see, there is absolutely nothing new in this plan. There is no wide-ranging commitment to peace towards Israel on the part of Arab countries. I can't possibly understand why so many in the media are excited by it.

Yes, that's a true observation, cerulean.

A commitment to peace is only something that can be accomplished by civilized people, which is why the Arab world will only be able to reach this level after a major shift in its basic culture of hatred, violence and religious incitement.

Hopefully, in 2 or 3 generations the Arabs will be ready for modern civilization and a commitment to peace.

In the meantime, though, there can be a long-term state of non-war ONLY if there will be a mechanism in place to immediately reverse all Israeli land-gifts to the Arabs in the event that Arab terrorism and belligerence continues.

[takeo]

I read an interview with the Saoudi prince in which he confirmed that the refugee-question would be included too (because without that no peace is possible).
Yes recognition of Israel was included in the UN-resolutions, but as Israel refused to make the UN-resolutions reality, Arab countries haven't done so either.
"the IDF has been very good at preventing existential threats form the Arabs"
what do you call existential threats? It couldn't prevent war with the palestinians and it couldn't stop the Palestinian resistance, and in the long term it can not prevent Israel from destruction against a coalition (unless the US intervenes of course). Peace with Jordan and egypt stopped any armed attack or treath from those countries, these have prooven to be succesfull.
In the contrary to Oslo this plan wants to solve the question of land immidiately (and unlike Camp David Israel would withdraw almost completely, as well from eastern jerusalem).

"Hopefully, in 2 or 3 generations the Arabs will be ready for modern civilization and a commitment to peace.
In the meantime, though, there can be a long-term state of non-war ONLY if there will be a mechanism in place to immediately reverse all Israeli land-gifts to the Arabs in the event that Arab terrorism and belligerence continues."

if israel doesn't want to give the Palestinians an own state on the territory it conquered in 1967, than they won't be ready for peace even in 10 generations. If israel decides to withdraw immidiately than i'm sure most Palestinians and arabs, even the hawkisg Saoudi Arabia, would be engaged in peace almost immidiately. The choice is really upon Israel, any people, civilised or not, will resist against the occupation of their land. What kind of mechanism are you referring to? i think the only acceptable mechanism would be one under international or US-controll, a mechanism that would make sure that BOTH parties keep their promises. (you stated that Oslo was intended to give 94 % to the palestinians, and i know the date for this was 1999, so you have to admit Israel failed to keep its promise, such things should be avoided in the past).