Saudi prince explains why he was in contact with Israelis

[Phoenall]

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.

What does a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians have to do with defusing radicalism ?

It gives the Saudi's another stronghold to draw their cannon fodder from, and so the fight goes on suuni against Shiite until the first nuclear weapon is deployed and then the west becomes involved

 

[Phoenall]

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.

What does a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians have to do with defusing radicalism ?

Everything.

If the arab peace is forced on Israel do you think that radicalism will stop, who is going to stop Iranian funded terrorists from wiping out the Jews on the orders of the ayotollahs ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So how will the radicals be dealt with as they will still be there, the hatreds will be the same, the impetus will be the same and the outcome will never change. The only chance of change would be to destroy Israel and wipe out the Jews or to destroy islam and wipe out the muslims. Which is the lesser of two evils in the eyes of the Islamic world, and which would cause the least amount of fallout. The arabs lit a powder keg in 1948 when they refused the chance of peace, and 65 years later the situation has just become worse because of all the warmongering of the various arab tribes.

 

[Phoenall]

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 according to you no other religion matters anymore but islam. Jerusalem has been a HOLY SITE for Christians for over 2,000 years, and for Jews for over 3,000 years. Mentioned mant times in the Talmud and the Bible. Yet not one mention of Jerusalem in the Koran is there, all there is at the end of the day is a passing remark about the last mosque being "somewhere over there". For centuries the dome of the rock and the al aqsa mosque stood derelict and unused by any muslim travellers until it was rebuilt after suffering total collapse from an earthquake.


It is even more reasonable for the arab's to compensate Israel and the Jews for the last 1400 years of mass murder, rape, theft, beatings, evictions and blood libels. After all the Jews have over 3,500 years of continuous habitation in Palestine, that is over 2,000 more years than arab muslims have been around.. So how about the arab colonists depart Palestine and go back to their homes in Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, iran and yemen.

Your view of peace is totally unreasonable because it is there just to steal Israel and ethnically cleaned all the Jews from the M.E. It offers Israel nothing at all but more mass murder, more slavery and more land theft in the name of Mohamed.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

What you are saying is it would be better for Israel to hand the keys to islam now and pack their bags and leave rather than fight to the death. The only reason you don't want Israel to fight to the death is because far too many muslims will die in the process leaving the M.E wide open to invasion and colonisation. While Israel is there the rest of the world is keeping well out of things, but let the arabs breach the Geneva conventions and declare all out war and the west would flood the area with well trained and well equipped troops ready to push the arabs as far back as they can. If this means destroying oil wells in Saudi and the sacking of mecca then that is what they will do. They will hold or destroy mecca to force islam to its knees and add insult to injury by taking all the weapons and power from the surviving muslims while rebuilding Israel and the TEMPLE

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Then explain the genocide of the Jews in medina when they refused to worship Mohamed ?

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Have you forgotten that the right of return works both ways and that the Jews would need to be compensated as well. Can islam afford to buy of the Jews when push comes to shove ?

 

[Victory67]

Have you forgotten that the right of return works both ways and that the Jews would need to be compensated as well. Can islam afford to buy of the Jews when push comes to shove ?

Forget compensation.

Right of Return only.

 

[Hossfly]

Have you forgotten that the right of return works both ways and that the Jews would need to be compensated as well. Can islam afford to buy of the Jews when push comes to shove ?

Forget compensation.

Right of Return only.

Guess what Bibi said about right of return? Go ahead, guess.

 

[Indeependent]

What was that...Right Turn?

 

[Victory67]

Have you forgotten that the right of return works both ways and that the Jews would need to be compensated as well. Can islam afford to buy of the Jews when push comes to shove ?

Forget compensation.

Right of Return only.

Guess what Bibi said about right of return? Go ahead, guess.

Same thing the Palestinians say about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

both sides can be very stupid.

 

[toastman]

Have you forgotten that the right of return works both ways and that the Jews would need to be compensated as well. Can islam afford to buy of the Jews when push comes to shove ?

Forget compensation.

Right of Return only.

Guess what Bibi said about right of return? Go ahead, guess.

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll No

 

[Victory67]

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll No

Then no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

see how this goes?

 

[Hossfly]

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll No

Then no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

see how this goes?

Macht es nichts.

 

[Victory67]

Macht es nichts.

Don't you mean Blut und Ehre?

 

[Sally]

Macht es nichts.

Don't you mean Blut und Ehre?

Ah, Herr Weil Ich Weiss is learning German. It is not surprising that many Nazis fled to Muslim countries after the war to escape prosecution. They felt comfortable with their Muslim friends.

 

[Victory67]

Macht es nichts.

Don't you mean Blut und Ehre?

Ah, Herr Weil Ich Weiss is learning German. It is not surprising that many Nazis fled to Muslim countries after the war to escape prosecution. They felt comfortable with their Muslim friends.

you're the one who started with the German.

 

[Sally]

Don't you mean Blut und Ehre?

Ah, Herr Weil Ich Weiss is learning German. It is not surprising that many Nazis fled to Muslim countries after the war to escape prosecution. They felt comfortable with their Muslim friends.

you're the one who started with the German.

We were just referring to you in your previous name to show you that we know who you are. I guess since you have spent so much time on this forum night and day recently, you still do not believe in partying and getting together with people your own age. Perhaps you should join the Muslim Student Association in the college you are now attending, and you might have some kind of social life with kids your own age whose views are like yours when it comes to Israel. To tell you the truth, I think practically everyone here would like to see you lead a normal life for a young man living in America instead of spending your young life on forums. Believe me, I would have given the same advice to my own sons if they had wasted their young lives on Internet forums instead of their being with their friends.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Indeed the royal fam has much to fear from Jihadist volatility, much of which has been funded by Saudi oil money.
Salafi movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SAYIT]

Have you forgotten that the right of return works both ways and that the Jews would need to be compensated as well. Can islam afford to buy of the Jews when push comes to shove ?

Forget compensation.

Right of Return only.

Thing is, most Palestinians don't want to return ... they want compensation. See what happens when hateful idiots try to impose their own sense of justice on the Palestinians?