Turki stuffing

A few months we had an excuse:

“The ambition to bring the Saudis on board has been disappointed,” said one Western diplomat based in Riyadh, who asked not to be identified because of the delicate nature of the debate. “I think it would be quite difficult for the Saudis to lead the way the U.S. is hoping, because any warmth towards Israel would be deeply unpopular with its public.”

“Deeply unpopular?” Since when does the Saudi government care about what’s popular? Do its leaders regularly submit to the polls? Of course not. And when the official media promotes hatred of Israel, would you expect the population to harbor warm feelings towards Israel?

Bahrain’s Crown Prince is correct (h/t The Cable):

Essentially, we have not done a good enough job demonstrating to Israelis how our initiative can form part of a peace between equals in a troubled land holy to three great faiths. Others have been less reticent, recognizing that our success would threaten their vested interest in keeping Palestinians and Israelis at each other’s throats. They want victims to stay victims so they can be manipulated as proxies in a wider game for power. The rest of us — the overwhelming majority — have the opposite interest.

(I don’t agree with everything in the op-ed, but this is a lot more honest than most Arab leaders are.)

Now two months later the New York Times gives Saudi Arabia Prince Turki space to continue the Arab intransigence. Turki writes:

Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, the custodian of its two holy mosques, the world’s energy superpower and the de facto leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds — that is why our recognition is greatly prized by Israel. However, for all those same reasons, the kingdom holds itself to higher standards of justice and law. It must therefore refuse to engage Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality.

This is arrogant and sanctimonious claptrap. Israel, has, I believe survived and even thrived for 61 years without recognition from the birthplace of Islam. I don’t see any reason for Israel to prize the recognition of the prince and his extended family, and I don’t think that Israel prizes that recognition. Israel prizes peace and since Saudi Arabia is, in many ways, the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds, if it would deign to make peace with Israel, other Arab and Muslim countries would likely follow. But as long as self-righteous tyrants hold sway in Saudi Arabia that will not happen.

I am impressed that the prince adheres to higher standards. So no doubt, he will soon advocate the return of the provinces of Jizan, Asir and Najran.to Yemen. I know that in 1995 that Yemen formally renounced its claims to those territories, but surely, in the name of “higher standards of justice” the prince and his countrymen should show the way.

Furthermore, since the Prince boasts of his country being the guardian of the two holy mosques of Islam, perhaps he should show the way by advocating the sharing of cities of Mecca and Medina just as he demands Israel do to Jerusalem. At the very least he should demand that non-Muslims not be restricted from visiting those cities. Again, in the name of “higher standards” of justice. After all if these standards are not universal then they are merely pretexts, not principles.

If the prince’s arrogance was on display in the paragraph cited above, his dishonesty is readily apparent in the following paragraph.

Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter, which called for the destruction of Israel, as evidence of Palestine’s attitude toward a two-state solution, without considering the illegalities of Israel’s own occupation. Israel has never presented any comprehensive formulation of a peace plan. Saudi Arabia, to the contrary, has done so twice: the Fahd peace plan of 1982 and the Abdullah peace initiative of 2002. Both were endorsed by the Arab world, and both were ignored by Israel.

How is the Hamas charter outdated? Hamas still denies Israel’s right to exist. At most, sympathetic journalists can get leaders of Hamas to possibly agree to a temporary ceasefire with Israel – once Israel has returned to its 1948 borders. But even then, there is no commitment to making peace with Israel, just tolerating Israel, until presumably Hamas has armed itself to inflict even more damage on Israel, just as it has done in the past.

I’m sorry if Israel hasn’t produced a plan that meets the Prince’s exacting standards. But Israel signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt, the Oslo Accords with unrepentant PLO and concluded a treaty with Jordan in 1994. So if these neighbors of Israel’s could see to sign treaties (even if not observe them), why do the Saudis insist on being more Muslim than the Imam?

But here’s the thing, Israel has not only signed these documents but it has actually complied with their terms. In other words Israel has matched its words with actions. That means that Israel ceded the Sinai to Egypt, water resources to Jordan and territory to the PA. On the other side neither of these countries nor the PA has reciprocated by allowing any reasonable level of normalization with Israel. In other words:” Israel has given; its “peace partners” have taken and then cynically proclaimed that Israel isn’t doing enough.

Have the Saudi done anything concrete to enhance peace in the Middle East? Did they forgo their discriminatory demand that the Magen David Adom not be accorded the protections of international law? Did they offer to pay the Jewish refugees who were forced from their homes in the Arab world? Nope. The Saudi plans are words, with no meaning attached to them.

In fact the Saudi “peace” plans are very specific in their demands of Israel, they are a lot more vague in what they offer Israel in return. The come off less as peace plans than as ultimatums.

But if Prince Turki is so concerned for the Palestinian then perhaps he should promote their statehood in what is now known as Jordan, invite the Hashemite rulers back to their native Mecca and offer to share power with them. The Hashemite kingdom of what was once Transjordan was a reward given the Abdullah, the great-grandfather of the current king of Jordan as a reward for his help to the British during World War I. Transjordan as it was originally called constituted 78% of what was then the British Mandate for Palestine. So if Prince Turki is truly concerned about the Palestinians there is a lot he could encourage his family, fellow Arabs and coreligionists to do to alleviate their statelessness.

It was eight years ago that 15 of Prince Turki’s countrymen attacked the United States. The Abdullah plan to which Prince Turki refers was a desperate attempt to deflect criticism of his country’s extremism aided and abetted by Thomas Friedman. Prince Turki’s op-ed shows that the “peace” offered by Abdullah, is nothing but words. As Barry Rubin explains:

This can be summarized as: First land, then peace.

If such an intiative would be taken by any country on any other issue in the world, observers would ridicule such an absurd position.

It is, of course, absurd and contrary to UN Resolutions 242 and 338 as well as all the Israel-Palestinian agreements including the Oslo accord of 1993. All of these put obligations on both sides to be implemented simultaneously. No Israeli government would ever agree to such an absurd notion that it gives up all the cards in the hope of then getting something in exchange.

In short, it is a formula for killing the peace process.

Yisrael Medad offers some point by point refutations to the prince.

The deflection strategy would seem to be necessary. (h/t Flopping Aces)

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

The article makes clear that the evidence of Saudi ties to Al Qaeda is largely circumstantial, but there certainly seems to be a lot of it.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.