Saudi prince explains why he was in contact with Israelis

[toastman]

Everything.

Elaborate

Middle East Policy Council | Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What Is the U.S. National Security Interest? How Can It Be Achieved?

Middle East Policy Council







Journal Essay

Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What Is the U.S. National Security Interest? How Can It Be Achieved?


Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis


Spring 2011, Volume XVIII, Number 1

THOMAS R. MATTAIR

Executive Director, Middle East Policy Council

We at the Middle East Policy Council think that it is a national security interest of the United States to resolve this conflict. In that, we are in agreement with President Obama, General Petraeus, George Mitchell, former officials such as Brent Scowcroft and many others. Since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter tried to orchestrate a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict with a Palestinian homeland at its core, there have been a number of developments: Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories have proliferated; the United States and Israel have recognized the PLO; interim agreements have been achieved; and limited Palestinian self-rule has been established.

More far-reaching comprehensive agreements have been narrowly missed, and there have been many setbacks and long interruptions in the peace process. But the nature of the resolution of this conflict has become crystal clear: a two-state solution, comprised of an independent state of Israel and an independent state of Palestine living in peace next to each other. We now have an American president who's trying very hard to bring this about. But he's facing considerable challenges, and he needs to rethink his approach and is doing so. We think this panel can help.



BRUCE RIEDEL

Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution

We are at a moment of truth in the Middle East, in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We face the urgent necessity of moving forward because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, is a national security threat to the United States of America.

There are many reasons why America should promote peace in the Middle East. Promoting peace is a good thing in and of itself, but today, more than ever, it is because our national security interests are at stake that we need to promote peace. Why is it a moment of truth? Last month at the U.S.-Israel forum sponsored by the Saban Center at Brookings, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted what we all knew: the Obama administration's very brave efforts of the first two years had not succeeded, had not produced a breakthrough despite the hard work of Secretary Clinton and special representative George D. Mitchell. Despite the brave words of Cairo, we had not achieved a breakthrough.

Now the administration, the American government in broader terms and the American people are debating the question, what next? We are hearing familiar arguments, arguments I remember hearing before Camp David in 2000, arguments we had at Camp David in 2000. Should we put it on the back burner? It's too hard. We simply can't accomplish this. We can't want it more than they want it. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've ever heard that one. We've heard all of these before. In my view, it is time to double down, to try harder and, if necessary, put forward American ideas with American strength behind them. I'm going to focus on why it is urgently necessary — which, frankly, is the easy part of this — and leave it to my colleagues to talk about how to do it, although I'll be happy to chime in my own two cents in the questions and answers.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, American lives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace agreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater Middle East. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealistic standard. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a stupid reason not to try to move ahead and solve it.

This is a false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threat to the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe that Israel is a national security interest of the United States and an ally and partner of America, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflict that threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security interests of the United States as well.

But I want to dwell on two other reasons. First, this conflict creates anger, frustration and humiliation that fuel the enemies that are killing Americans today. Second, this conflict weakens our allies and friends, the moderates in the Islamic world, who are trying to fight our enemies. I'm going to spend more time on the first and less time on the latter because I think the first is where there is the most intellectual disagreement.

There is no question to anyone who studies this conflict, anyone who has lived in the Arab world, anyone who has lived in the Islamic world, that this conflict produces anger, frustration and humiliation among Palestinians, among Arabs and among Muslims more broadly. It is thus a driving force — not the only one, but a driving force — of radical extremism throughout the Islamic world and becoming more so every day. Once again, it's not the only force; there are other things as well. But it is among the most important, if not the most important. I'm going to focus on al-Qaeda, because I've done a lot of research on al-Qaeda and because al-Qaeda today is the single most dangerous threat to the United States. President Obama made that clear in his review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan: our policy in this region has as its highest priority to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is also important because it falls into an unusual category. It is an organization that has actually declared war on the United States of America. No one since 1941 except al-Qaeda has declared war on the United States of America.

My proposition, very simply, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, is at the heart and center of al-Qaeda's ideology and narrative. It is essential for its case and its declaration of war that every single American is a legitimate target to be murdered today. Some argue that al-Qaeda is a latecomer to this issue, that it's not sincere, that this is not really what drives al-Qaeda at all, that al-Qaeda is actually driven by a desire to remove American soldiers from Saudi Arabia. Rubbish. Al-Qaeda has been involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute. It has been at the center of its ideology from its inception, as I will show you. If this issue were all about American troops in Saudi Arabia, this war should have ended five years ago. We lost, by the way. We gave up, and we said, we're leaving. But it didn't happen; it hasn't ended one bit.

Let me talk about it by looking at three individuals: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I'm going to focus primarily on Bin Laden. Every scholar who has studied Bin Laden's life in-depth — myself, Steve Coll, Mike Scheuer, Peter Bergen, you name them — emphasizes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a central feature of this man's life. Look at his speeches, for example. Of his eight major speeches before 9/11, seven of them highlighted the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a driving force in his ideology. Of his 16 major speeches between September 11, 2001, and 2007, 13 focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Look at his speech of May 2008, on the sixtieth anniversary of the creation of Israel:

The main root of the conflict between our civilization and your civilization is the Palestine question. I stress that the Palestine question is my country's central issue. Since childhood it has provided me and the free 19 [a reference to the hijackers of September 11] with an overwhelming feeling of the need to punish the Jews and those supporting them. This is why the events of September 11 took place.

There you have it, from the horse's mouth. It couldn't be more clear; it couldn't be more unequivocal. Go back to his 1998 declaration of war on America. What is the number-one goal he lists? The liberation, as he puts it, of Jerusalem. He puts the liberation of the Holy Mosque of Jerusalem above the liberation of the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, an extraordinary thing for a Muslim to do but a reflection of his priorities.

You didn't elaborate, all you did was copy paste the same thing you said but by a different person.

And there's something you need to understand. Radicalism towards Israel has nothing to do with a lack of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. It has to do with the fact that Israel exists all together in the Middle East. It has to do with the fact that there is a non Muslim state in the Middle East. It has to do with the fact that there is a Jewish country in the Middle East.

Radicalism wont stop or decrease if ISrael goes back to the '67 borders, it will probably INCREASE because the Muslim radicals, like Hamas for example, will be angry that a peace deal was signed all together with the Israeli infidels. Kind of like the radicals who killed Anwar Sadat for that exact reason.

WAKE UP PBEL

 

[pbel]

Elaborate

Middle East Policy Council | Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What Is the U.S. National Security Interest? How Can It Be Achieved?

Middle East Policy Council







Journal Essay

Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What Is the U.S. National Security Interest? How Can It Be Achieved?


Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis


Spring 2011, Volume XVIII, Number 1

THOMAS R. MATTAIR

Executive Director, Middle East Policy Council

We at the Middle East Policy Council think that it is a national security interest of the United States to resolve this conflict. In that, we are in agreement with President Obama, General Petraeus, George Mitchell, former officials such as Brent Scowcroft and many others. Since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter tried to orchestrate a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict with a Palestinian homeland at its core, there have been a number of developments: Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories have proliferated; the United States and Israel have recognized the PLO; interim agreements have been achieved; and limited Palestinian self-rule has been established.

More far-reaching comprehensive agreements have been narrowly missed, and there have been many setbacks and long interruptions in the peace process. But the nature of the resolution of this conflict has become crystal clear: a two-state solution, comprised of an independent state of Israel and an independent state of Palestine living in peace next to each other. We now have an American president who's trying very hard to bring this about. But he's facing considerable challenges, and he needs to rethink his approach and is doing so. We think this panel can help.



BRUCE RIEDEL

Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution

We are at a moment of truth in the Middle East, in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We face the urgent necessity of moving forward because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, is a national security threat to the United States of America.

There are many reasons why America should promote peace in the Middle East. Promoting peace is a good thing in and of itself, but today, more than ever, it is because our national security interests are at stake that we need to promote peace. Why is it a moment of truth? Last month at the U.S.-Israel forum sponsored by the Saban Center at Brookings, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted what we all knew: the Obama administration's very brave efforts of the first two years had not succeeded, had not produced a breakthrough despite the hard work of Secretary Clinton and special representative George D. Mitchell. Despite the brave words of Cairo, we had not achieved a breakthrough.

Now the administration, the American government in broader terms and the American people are debating the question, what next? We are hearing familiar arguments, arguments I remember hearing before Camp David in 2000, arguments we had at Camp David in 2000. Should we put it on the back burner? It's too hard. We simply can't accomplish this. We can't want it more than they want it. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've ever heard that one. We've heard all of these before. In my view, it is time to double down, to try harder and, if necessary, put forward American ideas with American strength behind them. I'm going to focus on why it is urgently necessary — which, frankly, is the easy part of this — and leave it to my colleagues to talk about how to do it, although I'll be happy to chime in my own two cents in the questions and answers.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, American lives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace agreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater Middle East. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealistic standard. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a stupid reason not to try to move ahead and solve it.

This is a false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threat to the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe that Israel is a national security interest of the United States and an ally and partner of America, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflict that threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security interests of the United States as well.

But I want to dwell on two other reasons. First, this conflict creates anger, frustration and humiliation that fuel the enemies that are killing Americans today. Second, this conflict weakens our allies and friends, the moderates in the Islamic world, who are trying to fight our enemies. I'm going to spend more time on the first and less time on the latter because I think the first is where there is the most intellectual disagreement.

There is no question to anyone who studies this conflict, anyone who has lived in the Arab world, anyone who has lived in the Islamic world, that this conflict produces anger, frustration and humiliation among Palestinians, among Arabs and among Muslims more broadly. It is thus a driving force — not the only one, but a driving force — of radical extremism throughout the Islamic world and becoming more so every day. Once again, it's not the only force; there are other things as well. But it is among the most important, if not the most important. I'm going to focus on al-Qaeda, because I've done a lot of research on al-Qaeda and because al-Qaeda today is the single most dangerous threat to the United States. President Obama made that clear in his review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan: our policy in this region has as its highest priority to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is also important because it falls into an unusual category. It is an organization that has actually declared war on the United States of America. No one since 1941 except al-Qaeda has declared war on the United States of America.

My proposition, very simply, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, is at the heart and center of al-Qaeda's ideology and narrative. It is essential for its case and its declaration of war that every single American is a legitimate target to be murdered today. Some argue that al-Qaeda is a latecomer to this issue, that it's not sincere, that this is not really what drives al-Qaeda at all, that al-Qaeda is actually driven by a desire to remove American soldiers from Saudi Arabia. Rubbish. Al-Qaeda has been involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute. It has been at the center of its ideology from its inception, as I will show you. If this issue were all about American troops in Saudi Arabia, this war should have ended five years ago. We lost, by the way. We gave up, and we said, we're leaving. But it didn't happen; it hasn't ended one bit.

Let me talk about it by looking at three individuals: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I'm going to focus primarily on Bin Laden. Every scholar who has studied Bin Laden's life in-depth — myself, Steve Coll, Mike Scheuer, Peter Bergen, you name them — emphasizes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a central feature of this man's life. Look at his speeches, for example. Of his eight major speeches before 9/11, seven of them highlighted the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a driving force in his ideology. Of his 16 major speeches between September 11, 2001, and 2007, 13 focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Look at his speech of May 2008, on the sixtieth anniversary of the creation of Israel:

The main root of the conflict between our civilization and your civilization is the Palestine question. I stress that the Palestine question is my country's central issue. Since childhood it has provided me and the free 19 [a reference to the hijackers of September 11] with an overwhelming feeling of the need to punish the Jews and those supporting them. This is why the events of September 11 took place.

There you have it, from the horse's mouth. It couldn't be more clear; it couldn't be more unequivocal. Go back to his 1998 declaration of war on America. What is the number-one goal he lists? The liberation, as he puts it, of Jerusalem. He puts the liberation of the Holy Mosque of Jerusalem above the liberation of the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, an extraordinary thing for a Muslim to do but a reflection of his priorities.

You didn't elaborate, all you did was copy paste the same thing you said but by a different person.

And there's something you need to understand. Radicalism towards Israel has nothing to do with a lack of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. It has to do with the fact that Israel exists all together in the Middle East. It has to do with the fact that there is a non Muslim state in the Middle East. It has to do with the fact that there is a Jewish country in the Middle East.

Radicalism wont stop or decrease if ISrael goes back to the '67 borders, it will probably INCREASE because the Muslim radicals, like Hamas for example, will be angry that a peace deal was signed all together with the Israeli infidels. Kind of like the radicals who killed Anwar Sadat for that exact reason.

WAKE UP PBEL

It is you that needs to wake up and realize that Israel will collapse with attrition like all the previous invaders to this region if not truly accepted...

Pasting articles to support ones position is acceptable in the scientific method...

Really, sometimes you are naïve and ignore the history of the East West struggle being played out.

 

[Indeependent]

pbel, et al,

Not to sound argumentative, but how is this plan in anyway "reasonable?"

Unfortunately Rocco the Phoenalls as you can see from these very boards are the majority opinions for the Israeli public and their apologists...

The Arab League initiative is a reasonable plan, however the Jews of Israel and the world will never give up Jerusalem even if it saves Israel...The politics of suicide seem to rule ME politics along with their angry gods who love war.

(COMMENT)

While the case of Jerusalem is an important point, I don't think it is the real deal breaker. Remembering that both the Israelis and the Palestinians declared Jerusalem their national capitol.

But totally setting the conditions for the Jewish National Home to be overrun by 5 million Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is a major, deal breaking condition.

The difficulty rest with how you implement a Plan such as the API, and still have an outcome of a "just and comprehensive peace." How does flooding Israel with HoAP result in peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Not to sound argumentative, but how is this plan in anyway "reasonable?"


(COMMENT)

While the case of Jerusalem is an important point, I don't think it is the real deal breaker. Remembering that both the Israelis and the Palestinians declared Jerusalem their national capitol.

But totally setting the conditions for the Jewish National Home to be overrun by 5 million Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is a major, deal breaking condition.

The difficulty rest with how you implement a Plan such as the API, and still have an outcome of a "just and comprehensive peace." How does flooding Israel with HoAP result in peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

There are no lovers of peace in the ME all their gods are angry and like war...

The first war was started by invading Zionists to the area...The second by an Israeli pre-emptive strike...the third by Egypt to regain occupied territory.

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

Not to sound argumentative, but how is this plan in anyway "reasonable?"

Unfortunately Rocco the Phoenalls as you can see from these very boards are the majority opinions for the Israeli public and their apologists...

The Arab League initiative is a reasonable plan, however the Jews of Israel and the world will never give up Jerusalem even if it saves Israel...The politics of suicide seem to rule ME politics along with their angry gods who love war.

(COMMENT)

While the case of Jerusalem is an important point, I don't think it is the real deal breaker. Remembering that both the Israelis and the Palestinians declared Jerusalem their national capitol.

But totally setting the conditions for the Jewish National Home to be overrun by 5 million Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is a major, deal breaking condition.

The difficulty rest with how you implement a Plan such as the API, and still have an outcome of a "just and comprehensive peace." How does flooding Israel with HoAP result in peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

Rocco says the same thing basically that I have been saying

Allowing Israel to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians will be demographic suicide for Israel

 

[Indeependent]

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

There are no lovers of peace in the ME all their gods are angry and like war...

The first war was started by invading Zionists to the area...The second by an Israeli pre-emptive strike...the third by Egypt to regain occupied territory.

Hold on a moment...I'm checking to see if Mr. Ed just entered my house because I smell horse sh!t.

 

[pbel]

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

There are no lovers of peace in the ME all their gods are angry and like war...

The first war was started by invading Zionists to the area...The second by an Israeli pre-emptive strike...the third by Egypt to regain occupied territory.

Hold on a moment...I'm checking to see if Mr. Ed just entered my house because I smell horse sh!t.

He would be in your house.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Not to sound argumentative, but how is this plan in anyway "reasonable?"


(COMMENT)

While the case of Jerusalem is an important point, I don't think it is the real deal breaker. Remembering that both the Israelis and the Palestinians declared Jerusalem their national capitol.

But totally setting the conditions for the Jewish National Home to be overrun by 5 million Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is a major, deal breaking condition.

The difficulty rest with how you implement a Plan such as the API, and still have an outcome of a "just and comprehensive peace." How does flooding Israel with HoAP result in peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...
It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

Rocco says the same thing basically that I have been saying

Allowing Israel to be flooded by tens of thousands of Palestinians will be demographic suicide for Israel

How could you miss that wording?

 

[toastman]

Middle East Policy Council | Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What Is the U.S. National Security Interest? How Can It Be Achieved?

Middle East Policy Council







Journal Essay

Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What Is the U.S. National Security Interest? How Can It Be Achieved?


Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis


Spring 2011, Volume XVIII, Number 1

THOMAS R. MATTAIR

Executive Director, Middle East Policy Council

We at the Middle East Policy Council think that it is a national security interest of the United States to resolve this conflict. In that, we are in agreement with President Obama, General Petraeus, George Mitchell, former officials such as Brent Scowcroft and many others. Since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter tried to orchestrate a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict with a Palestinian homeland at its core, there have been a number of developments: Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories have proliferated; the United States and Israel have recognized the PLO; interim agreements have been achieved; and limited Palestinian self-rule has been established.

More far-reaching comprehensive agreements have been narrowly missed, and there have been many setbacks and long interruptions in the peace process. But the nature of the resolution of this conflict has become crystal clear: a two-state solution, comprised of an independent state of Israel and an independent state of Palestine living in peace next to each other. We now have an American president who's trying very hard to bring this about. But he's facing considerable challenges, and he needs to rethink his approach and is doing so. We think this panel can help.



BRUCE RIEDEL

Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution

We are at a moment of truth in the Middle East, in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We face the urgent necessity of moving forward because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, is a national security threat to the United States of America.

There are many reasons why America should promote peace in the Middle East. Promoting peace is a good thing in and of itself, but today, more than ever, it is because our national security interests are at stake that we need to promote peace. Why is it a moment of truth? Last month at the U.S.-Israel forum sponsored by the Saban Center at Brookings, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted what we all knew: the Obama administration's very brave efforts of the first two years had not succeeded, had not produced a breakthrough despite the hard work of Secretary Clinton and special representative George D. Mitchell. Despite the brave words of Cairo, we had not achieved a breakthrough.

Now the administration, the American government in broader terms and the American people are debating the question, what next? We are hearing familiar arguments, arguments I remember hearing before Camp David in 2000, arguments we had at Camp David in 2000. Should we put it on the back burner? It's too hard. We simply can't accomplish this. We can't want it more than they want it. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've ever heard that one. We've heard all of these before. In my view, it is time to double down, to try harder and, if necessary, put forward American ideas with American strength behind them. I'm going to focus on why it is urgently necessary — which, frankly, is the easy part of this — and leave it to my colleagues to talk about how to do it, although I'll be happy to chime in my own two cents in the questions and answers.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, American lives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace agreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater Middle East. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealistic standard. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a stupid reason not to try to move ahead and solve it.

This is a false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threat to the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe that Israel is a national security interest of the United States and an ally and partner of America, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflict that threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security interests of the United States as well.

But I want to dwell on two other reasons. First, this conflict creates anger, frustration and humiliation that fuel the enemies that are killing Americans today. Second, this conflict weakens our allies and friends, the moderates in the Islamic world, who are trying to fight our enemies. I'm going to spend more time on the first and less time on the latter because I think the first is where there is the most intellectual disagreement.

There is no question to anyone who studies this conflict, anyone who has lived in the Arab world, anyone who has lived in the Islamic world, that this conflict produces anger, frustration and humiliation among Palestinians, among Arabs and among Muslims more broadly. It is thus a driving force — not the only one, but a driving force — of radical extremism throughout the Islamic world and becoming more so every day. Once again, it's not the only force; there are other things as well. But it is among the most important, if not the most important. I'm going to focus on al-Qaeda, because I've done a lot of research on al-Qaeda and because al-Qaeda today is the single most dangerous threat to the United States. President Obama made that clear in his review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan: our policy in this region has as its highest priority to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is also important because it falls into an unusual category. It is an organization that has actually declared war on the United States of America. No one since 1941 except al-Qaeda has declared war on the United States of America.

My proposition, very simply, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, is at the heart and center of al-Qaeda's ideology and narrative. It is essential for its case and its declaration of war that every single American is a legitimate target to be murdered today. Some argue that al-Qaeda is a latecomer to this issue, that it's not sincere, that this is not really what drives al-Qaeda at all, that al-Qaeda is actually driven by a desire to remove American soldiers from Saudi Arabia. Rubbish. Al-Qaeda has been involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute. It has been at the center of its ideology from its inception, as I will show you. If this issue were all about American troops in Saudi Arabia, this war should have ended five years ago. We lost, by the way. We gave up, and we said, we're leaving. But it didn't happen; it hasn't ended one bit.

Let me talk about it by looking at three individuals: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I'm going to focus primarily on Bin Laden. Every scholar who has studied Bin Laden's life in-depth — myself, Steve Coll, Mike Scheuer, Peter Bergen, you name them — emphasizes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a central feature of this man's life. Look at his speeches, for example. Of his eight major speeches before 9/11, seven of them highlighted the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a driving force in his ideology. Of his 16 major speeches between September 11, 2001, and 2007, 13 focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Look at his speech of May 2008, on the sixtieth anniversary of the creation of Israel:

The main root of the conflict between our civilization and your civilization is the Palestine question. I stress that the Palestine question is my country's central issue. Since childhood it has provided me and the free 19 [a reference to the hijackers of September 11] with an overwhelming feeling of the need to punish the Jews and those supporting them. This is why the events of September 11 took place.

There you have it, from the horse's mouth. It couldn't be more clear; it couldn't be more unequivocal. Go back to his 1998 declaration of war on America. What is the number-one goal he lists? The liberation, as he puts it, of Jerusalem. He puts the liberation of the Holy Mosque of Jerusalem above the liberation of the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, an extraordinary thing for a Muslim to do but a reflection of his priorities.

You didn't elaborate, all you did was copy paste the same thing you said but by a different person.

And there's something you need to understand. Radicalism towards Israel has nothing to do with a lack of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. It has to do with the fact that Israel exists all together in the Middle East. It has to do with the fact that there is a non Muslim state in the Middle East. It has to do with the fact that there is a Jewish country in the Middle East.

Radicalism wont stop or decrease if ISrael goes back to the '67 borders, it will probably INCREASE because the Muslim radicals, like Hamas for example, will be angry that a peace deal was signed all together with the Israeli infidels. Kind of like the radicals who killed Anwar Sadat for that exact reason.

WAKE UP PBEL

It is you that needs to wake up and realize that Israel will collapse with attrition like all the previous invaders to this region if not truly accepted...

Pasting articles to support ones position is acceptable in the scientific method...

Really, sometimes you are naïve and ignore the history of the East West struggle being played out.

OMG Pbel, when will you realize that Israel will never truly be accepted, as long as they exist in the Middle East???? You are completely ignorant of the radicalism that goes on in the ME. These extremists don't even hide their intentions, instead they shout it out.
Your solution is to surrender to the Palestinians by shrinking Israels territory, flooding Israel with tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards Israel, and give sovereignty of half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians where Jews have their most holy sites. LOL


NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

 

[Indeependent]

Just a general question...
When WAS the Middle East ever plagued by peace?

 

[toastman]

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

There are no lovers of peace in the ME all their gods are angry and like war...

The first war was started by invading Zionists to the area...The second by an Israeli pre-emptive strike...the third by Egypt to regain occupied territory.

Israel started the 1948 Arab Israeli war??? HAHAHA!

Did Israel attack Jordan, Egypt, Syria and all the other states??? YOu're so full of shit Pbel.

6 day War. You just admitted that Israel didn't start it by saying they pre-emptively struck Egypt. You obviously don't know what a pre-emptive strike is. Oh, and Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran after Israel said they would consider doing that a declaration of war. AND they stationed their military by Israel borders while making threats

Yom Kippur war. Well, that one speaks for itself

Pro - Palestinians, re-writing history for the last 65 years

 

[RoccoR]

Indeependent, et al,

Right of Return is one thing, compensation, reparations, and restitution is something different.

• … that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

• … to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.

SOURCE: A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948

It is customary, that the side that lost the conflict pay the winner for the damages, especially when the losing side was also the aggressor.

On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption. However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

Article 2

The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​

SOURCE: A/RES/3314(XXIX) 14 December 1974

SOURCE: PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department

The Arab is, by definition and admission (official testimonial), the source of the "first use of armed force" (The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel) and so --- the "aggressor." I cannot recall a nation that defended itself against aggression, won the conflict, and was required to pay the lions share of the costs (including: compensation, reparations, and restitution).

pbel, et al,
Not to sound argumentative, but how is this plan in anyway "reasonable?"
(COMMENT)

While the case of Jerusalem is an important point, I don't think it is the real deal breaker. Remembering that both the Israelis and the Palestinians declared Jerusalem their national capitol.

But totally setting the conditions for the Jewish National Home to be overrun by 5 million Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is a major, deal breaking condition.

The difficulty rest with how you implement a Plan such as the API, and still have an outcome of a "just and comprehensive peace." How does flooding Israel with HoAP result in peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

(COMMENT)

Maybe compensation, reparations, and restitution is due, in part for the improper Israeli Settlements in the West Bank, established after the Armistice; but even that has to be balanced against the half-century of terrorism committed by the Arab-Palestinian.

Balance and Justice is a two-way street.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Indeependent, et al,

Right of Return is one thing, compensation, reparations, and restitution is something different.

• … that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

• … to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.

SOURCE: A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948

It is customary, that the side that lost the conflict pay the winner for the damages, especially when the losing side was also the aggressor.

On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption. However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.



SOURCE: PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department

The Arab is, by definition and admission (official testimonial), the source of the "first use of armed force" (The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel) and so --- the "aggressor." I cannot recall a nation that defended itself against aggression, won the conflict, and was required to pay the lions share of the costs (including: compensation, reparations, and restitution).

Jerusalem has been a Holy Site for Islam for at least 700 years...The Israelis are European Colonialists...Right of return compensation is just and hope it becomes part of the deal...

It is reasonable because the Arabs would accept Israel with normal relations.

So please explain the first 3 wars started by the Lovers of Peace.

(COMMENT)

Maybe compensation, reparations, and restitution is due, in part for the improper Israeli Settlements in the West Bank, established after the Armistice; but even that has to be balanced against the half-century of terrorism committed by the Arab-Palestinian.

Balance and Justice is a two-way street.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Shaarona, Phoenall, et al,

I have really no idea on what strategy and basis that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni is using to navigate the negotiation process.

He's a complete moron if he believes anyone would see the arab peace as anything but a chance to destroy Israel. What are the arab's offering Israel at the end of the day............NOTHING. Yet they expect Israel to give up its people and country to a gang of terrorist scum GET REAL

(COMMENT)

I have to disagree with our friend "Phoenall" from the standpoint that HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal is psychologically considered intellectual disabled. On the contrary, I think, from all outward appearances, he is quite the educated man.

In terms of the Arab Peace Initiative, I think Prince Turki expressed the intent of His Majesty King Abdullah (and the people of Saudi Arabia) promote an "independent Palestinian State next to a secure Israel in the framework of a just and comprehensive peace." And in all honesty, who can argue with that as a goal. But it must also be remembered that the Palestinians are split on the Arab Peace Initiative.

The Palestinian Hamas movement has rejected a revised Middle East peace initiative put forward by the Arab League, saying outsiders can not decide the fate of the Palestinians.

In meetings this week in Washington, Arab states appeared to soften their 2002 peace plan, acknowledging that Israelis and Palestinians may have to swap land in any eventual peace deal.

The United States and the Palestinian leadership in the occupied West Bank praised the move. But speaking to hundreds of worshippers in a mosque in the Gaza Strip on Friday, senior Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh said it was a concession that other Arabs were not authorised to make.

"The so-called new Arab initiative is rejected by our people, by our nation and no one can accept it," Haniyeh, prime minister of the Hamas government in the coastal enclave, said.

"The initiative contains numerous dangers to our people in the occupied land of 1967, 1948 and to our people in exile."

SOURCE: al-Jazeera

Having said that, I'm note sure there should not be headlines that say the Israelis rejected The Arab Peace Initiative (API) as well. The API "calls upon Israel to affirm "Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194" (A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948).

When Tzipi Livni was Foreign Minister, she noted that the Israeli rejecting of the API in the 2008 Peace Talks was based on the Resolution 194 demand and the interpretation of it to mean the return of all five million 1948 refugees and their descendants. It was known then, as it is now, to be put in the position which demands being swapped by that many hostile Palestinians was unacceptable to virtually all Israelis. It would mean the end of the Jewish National Home, the initial intention dating back a century.

So, it is really up to the Negotiators to reach some compromise; or to walk away in the status quo.

NOW, with this in mind, and accepting the premise that neither HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal or His Majesty King Abdullah are mentally ill (in fact both are quite brilliant), one must ask why they would inject such a requirement into a Plan that they both know would stress the framework of a just and comprehensive peace to the breaking point? Who benefits from the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? And why?

Most Respectfully,
R

Unfortunately Rocco the Phoenalls as you can see from these very boards are the majority opinions for the Israeli public and their apologists...

The Arab League initiative is a reasonable plan, however the Jews of Israel and the world will never give up Jerusalem even if it saves Israel...The politics of suicide seem to rule ME politics along with their angry gods who love war.

What does it give Israel then, the Palestinians get all of Israel, Jewish homes, Jewish money, Jewish farms and another Islamic state. The Israelis get mass terrorism, mass murder, mass rapes loss of their homeland, slavery of the ones left and dhimmi laws. Now how is that a fair peace for the Jews, subjecting them to beatings, abuse and mass murder.
Turn the peace plan on its head and put the Jews in charge of Palestine and have them as the majority and see how that sits with your views.

 

[Phoenall]

He's a complete moron if he believes anyone would see the arab peace as anything but a chance to destroy Israel. What are the arab's offering Israel at the end of the day............NOTHING. Yet they expect Israel to give up its people and country to a gang of terrorist scum GET REAL

The whole Mideast has been a spider web for who knows how long. Add this nugget of info to the mess: It was just announced on Fox News the past hour that Saudi Arabia is threatening to go nuclear because of the recent US-Iran deal. Just what we need during this time. I'll add any news flashes as the become available.

The Saudis stated that they paid for the Pakistani nukes and I bet they control them.

That has been paid back and so Saudi has no say in the matter, shown just lately when the extremists took over and tried to fire the nukes at Israel. It wasn't the Saudis that came to their aid but the British and Americans

 

[Phoenall]

Prince Turki is a great man.. Anyone who has followed his career knows that.

He's a complete moron if he believes anyone would see the arab peace as anything but a chance to destroy Israel. What are the arab's offering Israel at the end of the day............NOTHING. Yet they expect Israel to give up its people and country to a gang of terrorist scum GET REAL

You should learn to listen to the language of those who want peace in Palestine. They aren't hateful like you.

It is because I have listened that I see the truth and reality of the arab peace plan. All it is, is a tarted up version of the PLO pre conditions that would mean the destreuction of Israel.
But maybe you can explain how the return to non existent borders and flooding Israel with 4 million arab unemployed would be beneficial to the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

The whole Mideast has been a spider web for who knows how long. Add this nugget of info to the mess: It was just announced on Fox News the past hour that Saudi Arabia is threatening to go nuclear because of the recent US-Iran deal. Just what we need during this time. I'll add any news flashes as the become available.

The Saudis stated that they paid for the Pakistani nukes and I bet they control them.

No they didn't.... The Saudis have called for nuke free ME for 40 years.. and they don't want nuclear weapons unless they are forced into it by Iran.. They do want nuclear driven desalination....

You do realise that the spent fuel from nuclear power stations is highly radioactive and can be used in "dirty" bombs. Which cause more deaths and long lasting injuries than conventional nuclear warheads. Why would Saudi need nuclear weapons if iran had them when the biggest fear so they say is Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

The Saudis stated that they paid for the Pakistani nukes and I bet they control them.

No they didn't.... The Saudis have called for nuke free ME for 40 years.. and they don't want nuclear weapons unless they are forced into it by Iran.. They do want nuclear driven desalination....

Saudi Arabia said to have bought nukes from Pakistan

Warheads stand ready for delivery if and when Iran goes nuclear, report says; Riyadh has the missiles needed to launch them

Saudi Arabia said to have bought nukes from Pakistan | The Times of Israel
Read more: Saudi Arabia said to have bought nukes from Pakistan | The Times of Israel Saudi Arabia said to have bought nukes from Pakistan | The Times of Israel
Follow us: [MENTION=32814]Tim[/MENTION]esofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Lets just say that the DEW line is not swinging round to look in the Saudis direction just yet, and the satellites are not picking up any abnormal radiation signals. When the media say " said to have" or "sources say" they mean the rumours are that it could be possibly, maybe happening just not yet. I do believe the NPT bans the sale/transport of nuclear weapons to non nuclear nations. So how has Pakistan manage to get round that?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

There is no question in my mind that some people want a just peace for Palestine.

Saudi prince explains why he was in contact with Israelis

By Ariel Ben Solomon
14/02/2014

"I want to clarify my perspective," says prince of questions posed by Israelis at international conferences.



Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal sought to explain why he was in contact with Israelis at the Munich Security Conference last month in an article published on Thursday in the Saudi newspaper Al Riyadh.

Faisal said that when he is at international conferences, which are open to all, he sometimes is posed questions from Israelis in the audience – both government officials and ordinary citizens.

These contacts have raised questions, so “in this article I want to clarify my perspective… even if it was a mistake by me and of the devil,” he wrote.

He then went on to explain how “our Palestinian brothers” have been suffering from injustice, brutal wars, occupation and so on, and that Saudi Arabia is making persistent efforts to support the Palestinian cause.

Faisal also said that the only way to solve the “tragedy” is the adoption of the Arab Peace Initiative, first proposed in 2002, which includes a Palestinian state on pre-1967 boundaries with its capital in Jerusalem and a return of refugees, in return for normalization of Israel’s relations with the Arab world.

Unfortunately, he said, Israel refused the solution.

At the conference last month, Faisal said that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni is the right person to lead Israel’s negotiating team.

Livni’s office confirmed that during a question and answer session at the end of a panel on the peace process, featuring Livni, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat and American envoy Martin Indyk, the Saudi prince asked Livni about the Arab Peace Initiative.

At the end of the panel discussion, Faisal praised Livni, saying he “understands why [she was] chosen to be Israel’s negotiator.”

“If only you could sit on the same stage with me and talk about it,” Livni responded.

Lahav Harkov contributed to this report.


Saudi prince explains why he was in contact with Israelis | JPost | Israel News

Pre-'67? Umm...No. They cast the die and tried to win through warfare and lost. You can't do 'backsies.'

 

[Phoenall]

The Saudis stated that they paid for the Pakistani nukes and I bet they control them.

The Saudis intimated months ago that they had paid for access to Pakistani nukes and that a nuclear Iran would move them to cash that chip. Ironically, the suspicion that Israel has for decades had nukes was not cause for the Saudi's to arm. Go figure.

Simple, the Saudis see the Jihadist message spreading, one only needs to look at the Arab Spring results. The Saudis desperately need an Israeli Palestinian peace to try and defuse radicalism because they too fear for their thrones.

And you and the rest of the islamonazi morons think that Israel should lay down and die to meet these ends. you are prepared to ethnically cleanse every Jew from the M.E. to stabilise the fighting between the suuni's and Shi'ites. Well take it from me I for one wont allow the muslims to do that and will fight for Israel's and the Jews survival.