Arabs to Israel: Do as we say

Saudi Arabia, having presented a so-called peace plan and insisted there will not be any changes made to the five-year-old plan that was rejected in 2002, then tells Israel she must be flexible. Yes, it truly is Israeli Double Standard Time all of the time.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said Tuesday that Israel should accept a broad land-for-peace offer that Arab leaders plan to revive at a summit here this week, expressing frustration at Israel’s hesitation over the initiative.

Saudi Arabia and other U.S. Arab allies hope the peace plan can build momentum for a resumption of the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal took a tough stance, suggesting Israel must also show more flexibility.

Watch the juxtaposition here. The Arabs are being shown as utterly inflexible, and yet, Israel is the nation that needs to “show more flexibility.” Find the flexibility in the following:

Israel rejected the Arab initiative when it was first made in 2002, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said last week his country was willing to accept it with some changes, particularly if demands on Palestinian refugees were watered down.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal hinted on Monday that Arab leaders could consider amendments, saying they had to “take notice of new developments.”

But in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, al-Faisal appeared to back off, saying, “What has changed in order for the proposal to change?”

An Arab diplomat said Saudi Arabia had been hoping Olmert would show a stronger willingness to restart peace talks on the Arab proposal in order to give the Arabs leeway to show flexibility. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomatic maneuvering.

Still haven’t found it? Okay. Let’s see if we can find any more flexibility.

Al-Faisal appeared disappointed with the Israel stance, saying Israel had to change its “fortress” mentality “that force will achieve what they need in terms of security.” He said the Arabs were serious and unanimous in their offer, and “now it depends on the other side to do the rest.”

“We want to have peace. That is the best solution for the problem,” he said.

“If Israel reaches an agreement on redeployment from Arab lands,” he said, “then there will be peace signed between all the Arab countries. But not before.”

Once again, let me interpret for you: “Israel, do everything we tell you to do, and then we will sign peace agreements with you.” Of course, never in the past have the Arab nations ever lied to Israel. Nope. Nuh-uh. Never. Not at all.

Now, you have all the text needed. Let’s start a pool on the first headline that blames Israeli inflexibility (or stubbornness, or intransigence, or refusal to budge, or any synomym of inflexibility), and watch for the Arab spokesmen to all blame Israel. And then watch for the terror attacks launched after “Israel refuses to have peace.”

And last, but not least, the AP buries this waaaaay down:

A draft of the final resolution to be approved by the summit relaunches the peace initiative without changes. But it also creates working groups that will meet with the United Nations, United States, Europe and Russia in an attempt to push the plan forward.

Nothing has changed, but the AP perpetuates the myth that the Arabs will “consider” making the changes necessary.

This is the history of all dealings between Israel and the Arab nations since Camp David. In the past sixty years, only Anwar Sadat dealt honestly with Israel. Every other Arab leader has played the same old bullshit: Do as we say, or no deal.

Which is why there has been one, and only one true peace agreement—and it was land for peace, the big deal to the Arabs—since 1948.

You would think they’d get a clue by now.