Peace is blocked by the Three Nos of Jerusalem

By Henry Siegman

Published: April 18 2007 18:11 | Last updated: April 18 2007 18:11

The Arab League meeting in Cairo yesterday was unprecedented in its overture to Israel, offering to meet Israeli representatives to clarify the peace initiative that the League re-endorsed at its meeting in Riyadh on March 28. The two events underscore the complete reversal of the paradigm that for so long has defined the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the effort by armies of several Arab countries to abort its birth, until well past the war of 1967 which left Israel in control of all of Palestine, Israel was seen by much of the world as both victim and peace- seeker. Arab countries were seen as warmongers and rejectionists. The paradigm was reinforced by the “Three Nos of Khartoum” when, in 1967, Arab countries pledged there would be no peace, no negotiations and no recog­nition of the Jewish state.

This image of the Arab worldâos total rejection of Israel persisted into the 1980s, even after it became clear that the prime minister, Golda Meir, had ignored peace initiatives by the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, for which Israel paid dearly in the October war of 1973. Nor did a change in Arab attitudes to the Jewish state implicit in the Saudi Fahd plan, adopted by the Arab League in 1981, prompt any rethinking of that image in Israel or in the west.

Since then, particularly in the aftermath of the Oslo accords in 1993 and the MENA Economic Summits hosted by various Arab countries, Arab rejection of Israel's legitimacy has largely dissipated. Well before the Saudi initiative of 2002 senior Arab officials sought to persuade Yasser Arafat, former Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, to accept peace terms offered by Ehud Barak, Israelâos former prime minister, at Camp David in 2000.

Then came the Saudi initiative, in which the most conservative of Arab countries and the most conservative of Saudi princes, Crown Prince Abdullah, declared that Saudi Arabia would fully normalise its relations with Israel and welcome its embassy and flag in its capital as soon as Israel ended its conflict with the Palestinians, an offer endorsed by every Arab country.

The Israeli response to this tectonic change in Arab psychology and politics was worse than rejection: it was complete indifference, as if this 180-degree turnround in Arab thinking had no meaning for Israel and its future in the region.

Ehud Olmert, prime minister, and his government have reflexively rejected every Arab peace offer, whether from Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Arab League or Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. Ariel Sharonâos and Mr Olmertâos policies these past seven years have shaped a new paradigm in which Israel is the rejectionist party. The Three Nos of Khartoum have been replaced by the Three Nos of Jerusalem: no negotiations with Syria, no acceptance of the Arab initiative and, above all, no peace talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Olmert and his associates devote their diplomatic skills to finding ever more tortured pretexts for blocking every opportunity for peacemaking, while posturing as peace-lovers in search of âoreasonableâo Arabs who qualify as partners for peace. Their goal remains to prevent a peace process that would require them to halt Israel's expansion of its settlements and its effort to cut off East Jerusalem from its Palestinian hinterland.

This deception worked well for a while and perhaps still convinces president George W. Bush and those he relies on to understand the Middle East, the folks who gave us the Iraq war, but has worn thin with much of the rest of the world, including many Americans. Several US columnists who bought into the old paradigm, or avoided the subject for fear of be-ing labelled anti-Israel, now reject it.

Israel has lost the high moral ground. It will not regain it until its citizens elect a government that understands that the price of peace, whose outline was agreed to by both sides in the Taba talks after the failed Camp David negotiations, is far less than the cost of its current rejectionism.

To be sure, the moral high ground does not necessarily provide security. But for a western country, located in the heart of the Arab and Islamic world, that has been the beneficiary of vastly disproportionate US and western support because it has been seen as a moral avatar, the loss of that high ground could not be more devastating to its long-term security.

Henry Siegman is director of the US/Middle East Project and research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

America up to its old tricks again

Editorial

Published: 21/04/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Gulf News

The US has persuaded Nato that in their best interests, a missile shield should protect them from the danger of attack. The supposed source of such a deadly attack would, according to US intelligence, be both Iran and "others" in the Middle East.

As if things weren't bad enough through US policy, the thought of having armed missiles pointing towards the Arab world - just in case - is fearful. It is also more likely to lead to a rethinking and escalation of strategic defence in the region than a deterrent.

It also underlines the US attitude to foreign policy. Namely, to seek out and undermine all perceived threats, whether imagined or real. Such bravura performance reinforces the danger of the ill-conceived policies that emanate from the White House and the Pentagon.

Russia has already expressed alarm, and quite rightly so, at the prospect of 10 interceptor missiles being based in Poland, with an associated radar station in the Czech Republic.

Russia maintains that as there are no Iranian ICBMs, the installation of the missiles is primarily aimed as at Russia. Considering the US defence system will not protect all Nato members - Turkey and parts of Greece - it is likely that Russia's concerns are valid.

No more Arab capitulation

---

Israel had finally given its conditional assent to the Arab peace initiative launched in Beirut in 2002. Ahead of his meeting with Palestinian President Abbas on 11 March, Israel's Prime Minister Olmert said that he "approved of regional negotiations on the basis of the Arab peace initiative," noting that Israel was willing to respond to that initiative, especially the positive aspects it contained. The Israeli foreign minister then advised Arab countries not to wait for peace to normalise relations with Israel, but to act sooner. Meanwhile, reports indicated that Israel demanded limited amendments in the initiative, especially with regard to the matters of borders and refugees. During her tour of the region, Condoleezza Rice hinted in the same direction.

It is hard to fathom this rapid change of heart on Israel's side. But we known that Israel, along with the US, are in the habit of engaging in such manoeuvres whenever an Arab summit is about to convene. The aim is always the same: to distract Arab leaders from the real issues at hand. In this case, Israel's aim was to prevent the summit from taking a strong anti-Israeli line. And America did the same, arranging for the Baghdad summit to be held on 10 March, a fortnight or so before the summit. The US wanted the Baghdad conference to launch a new regional policy that may bring about a solution to the Iraqi crisis. The conference, therefore, was timed to prevent the Arab summit from taking a hard-line stance on Iraq.

The Israeli move is nothing more than a diversion tactic. Israel's prime minister speaks of the "positive aspects" of the Arab initiative but his real aim is to speak of the aspects he wouldn't agree to. This is quite predictable, for Israel is unwilling to withdraw from the occupied territories and resolve the refugee problem. As for Livni's call for normalisation before talks, this is a non-starter. What Israel wants is for the Arabs to strip their initiative of content, to turn it into the "Tel Aviv initiative". Israel wants the Arabs to normalise their relations with Israel as a gesture of goodwill. Then and only then, it would engage in talks that may or may not lead to results.

Israel wants an Arab capitulation. It saw how the Arabs changed their position in the past and hopes for much the same again. Before 1967, the Arabs saw Israel as an imperialist state. After 1967, they accepted a two-state solution. Then the Arabs offered full normalisation to sweeten the deal. Now Israel wants more.

The Arab peace initiative is not a starting point for negotiations. Its wording is too clear to allow for further talks. The Arabs didn't fashion their initiative in ambiguous language that allows for give and take. Instead, they said exactly what they meant. The problem is that the initiative offers Israel not the least that the Arabs can accept, but the most they can do. This is what makes this initiative a poor starting point for negotiations. What more can the Arabs offer?

The Arabs should not alter their peace initiative. More importantly, they should admit that Israel is not in the mood to accept the Beirut initiative or even negotiate on its basis. All Israel wants is to disrupt the Riyadh summit. All it wants is for the Arabs to make more concessions. The Arabs should ignore what Israel is saying about amending the initiative. The Arabs should tilt the balance of power in their favour. The Arabs need to establish parity, not just with Israel, but also with all those who want to control their fate.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

Unravelling The US Political-Military Paradox

March 29, 2007

By Jim Kirwan

What got us into this nightmare was a lengthy string of mega-lies that originated within the twisted plans of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, back in the 1970’s. The U.S. presidents that have come and gone since then, have each played their part, in bringing us kicking and screaming to this decision point. There are several major parallax-views that have led the public to misunderstand and misinterpret the political events and military actions in the Middle-East: Actions that have kept our invasions going, and that now threaten to up-end the world—if these lies are allowed to serve, yet again; for another cover-story that can only end in chaos!

The November elections set the stage for this final confrontation between the desires of the public and the needs of the Outlaws: when it comes to funding and perpetuating our illegal and unilateral military responses to circumstances and to the control of those powers and resources that have become the global stance which has always underpinned the players in their intrigues in the Middle-East. Many nations now are involved to the point of self-extermination in the literal outcomes of how our continued presence there is handled.

It has taken almost forty years to get to the point where the United States government could be reduced from a single government consisting of three branches—to a cabal that has absolute power and that speaks for not only the other two branches, but who is totally opposed to the preferences and the well-being of the people of the United States as well!

One indication of this paradox is the recent behavior of Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war; and her hands will always have the bloodstains of millions of lives upon them – so long as she lives!

“For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran. "'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York." According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."

"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come." Nichols does not exaggerate.

If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does have the authority. Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress. They have been flashed the go-sign for war on Iran.

Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war. Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.” (1)

The Second Indication that something is dangerously amiss – are the numbers in the surge. The original demand was for 21,000. That number has since been added to, twice; and now it looks more like 40,000 total. There was never any attempt to comply with the wishes of the electorate or the congress, because the Decider acted immediately upon the announcement of his stated decision – as though no approval was required, from either the people or the congress: This, despite the fact that the public, the congress, and the world had all registered strong disapproval for his plans from the moment he announced them. If The Decider is determined to ‘act as a president and not a Dictator—he has a direct obligation to respond to obvious opposition, with something besides contempt!

But that’s only a sideshow: The real point is how these ‘surged’ troops will now be used. The Decider says they will be assigned to Baghdad. But it’s far more likely that these are the same troops that a Russian Satellite has just spotted, massing along the Iran border with Iraq—troops that will now be used to pre-emptively invade Iran. (2) Bush is lying to the world one more time, to create yet another WAR-Without-Reason: except of course to keep him, his friends, and his supporters out of jail and still in office—until he can disappear into Paraguay, without a backward glance. He’s lied to the world so many times before, what’s one-more-LIE, when the world has apparently swallowed so many of his lies already?

The Third Indication is the immediate reactions by those in the area, to what is obviously about to be. There were supposed to be US war games taking place yesterday and today in the Gulf: last night the media had “film at eleven” of two US aircraft carriers conducting war-games just beyond the territorial limits of Iran, in the Gulf. An Iranian Admiral has just denied that any such actions ever happened. (3) The Brits are also making warlike noises over the detention of 15 British Sailors and Marines, captured by Iran, in what Iran claims were Iranian waters. Tony Blair says otherwise and is demanding their release. So now there are two clay pigeons sitting outside or inside Iran either or both of which can be used as the next “Tonkin Gulf incident” for Iran.

The Fourth Paradox is perhaps the most complex and dangerous element: yet in an ironic twist of potentials, this one may just offer a possible way out, if it doesn’t become the actual reason to launch this operation—for in the twisted minds of the rabid American and Israeli war-mongers they absolutely want these new wars to happen!

“DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: The president of the United Arab Emirates forbade the U.S. military from using bases in his country to attack or spy on Iran as mammoth U.S. Navy maneuvers in the Gulf entered their second day. Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who leads this key U.S. ally, said Tuesday that the Emirates had assured Iran that it was not siding with Washington in its dispute over Tehran's nuclear program.

Leaders of Arab nations around the Gulf have grown increasingly uneasy with the tough U.S. stance toward Iran, believing any outbreak of war would bring Iranian retaliation on their own soil, which lies in easy reach of Iranian missiles. On Wednesday, the U.S. Navy continued its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 15 ships, 125 aircraft and 13,000 sailors taking part in an exercise that veered within a few dozen miles of Iran's coast.” (4) However it should be noted that Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey, along with a host of other states would also be drawn, one way or another, into any new war on Iran.

“The Russians and the Chinese for their part are also concerned, beyond their strictly commercial interests in that nation. “Russia's Foreign Ministry has sharply criticized the United States for what it called over-reliance on force and warned Washington against military action against Iran, The Associated Press reported. Russia criticized what it called "the creeping American strategy of dragging the global community into a large-scale crisis around Iran," saying that Tehran helps maintain stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia.” In an already scrubbed report, Russian and China had also warned the US that Washington must sit down at the table with Iran and solve this dilemma diplomatically. Simultaneously they also told Iran that they needed to back down from their hard line position on developing nuclear facilities. It would appear that these two major nuclear powers want this stand-off defanged, so that the world can return to that time before the USA began to behave like the Hulk-of-all-Superpowers that has become overly enchanted with their own purely-macho approach to international affairs.

This is the totality of what’s on the table now, and thanks to Nancy Pelosi, there is no congressional way to stop the Bushwhackers from shattering the Middle-East—like the proverbial Piñata that floats above the banquet-table of the war-mongers—drooling over the ‘possibilities’ that await their next and perhaps final move to empower Israel, and to capture the entire Middle-East, for the Corporatocracy and the Oil, in a bold and savage move.

The only final Paradox that remains, is that in all of this American Military planners have failed to account for what they may actually face with this new attack—exactly as they did when Rummy ran his dog & pony show into Baghdad in 2003. No matter how many times the lies of this administration are repeated—it does not make them true! As the intensity of the bloodlust in their greed does not insure success; so too the half-hearted assessments of the defense of Iran, will not change the outcomes of the trajectories of Iranian missiles one iota. If this misguided and criminal attack gets underway—at any time—the world will suffer for this crime: for decades to come if any of us survive at all. Congress is now irrelevant—again—but the rest of the planet is apparently awakening to the reality that now threatened people everywhere. Why not add your voice to those of the other peoples that oppose this Nightmare NOW! (6)

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

1) The AIPAC Girl, Nancy Pelosi Leaves Iran War in Bush/Cheney Hands

http://www.postchronicle.com:80/commentary/article_21270952.shtml

2) Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

3) Iran Admiral – US War Games Claims – False

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=4137&sectionid=3510101

4) Gulf Arabs distance themselves from U.S. Treats against Iran

http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2007/03/28/africa/ME-GEN-Arabs-US-Iran.php

5) Easter Surprise Attack on Iran, new 9/11. . . Or Worse

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com:80/node/1052

6) Accept Peace or Face War, Israel told

http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2007/03/accept-peace-plan-or-face-war-israel.html

Israeli Vice Premier Peres calls for direct Arab-Israeli talks

Last update - 19:53 29/03/2007

Report: Peres calls for direct Arab-Israeli talks

By Avi Issacharoff , Haaretz Correspondent, and Reuters

Israel hold direct talks on peace with Arab states, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Thursday after Arab leaders renewed a peace offer first drafted by Saudi Arabia in 2002.

"Let's sit together as we are supposed to and work on it as we did before with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians," he told Al Jazeera television in remarks dubbed in Arabic, but he did not say if Israel accepts or rejects the Arab bid.

The plan, parts of which have been rejected by Israel, offers normal ties with all Arab countries in return for Israel's withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, the creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinians displaced in 1948.

"It is time now to start negotiating and not only to make announcements," Peres said. "We should think about the tactics [for peace] and how to implement them," he said.

"We either do this [peace steps] unilaterally or bilaterally. If you do that unilaterally then you are making a declaration but bilaterally there would be an Arab stance and an Israeli stance and these will include some difference," he said.

Peres said no conditions should be set for the envisaged Arab-Israeli negotiations.

"We propose that we meet without setting pre-conditions and negotiate," he said. "We also want comprehensive peace that tackles all of the stagnant issues," he said.

"Yes there are some differences about the refugees and Jerusalem so we should sit together and solve this issue there is no other way."

Peres did not make a direct stance on the initiative but said: "We respect Arab countries and this conference [summit] ..."

U.S. welcomes Arab endorsement of peace plan
The United States welcomed Arab leaders' endorsement of the 5-year-old peace initiative intended to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, calling it was a "very postive" step.

"That is something that we view as very positive," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack when asked about the outcome of the Arab summit and endorsement of the 2002 plan drawn up at a previous summit in Beirut.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed Arab leaders during a visit to the region over the past week to follow up on the Arab plan and use it as the basis to engage with the Israelis.

Despite Israeli reservations, Rice said she had not asked Arab leaders to amend the plan.

"We encourage them, however, to use it as a point of active diplomacy and as a way of energizing the push for peace in the Middle East. Their efforts and those of others have an important role to play," said McCormack.

McCormack declined further comment on the summit's endorsement of the plan until he had more details but said Rice wanted Arab states to play a more active role in encouraging peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Abbas warns of violence if Israel rejects peace plan
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas warned on Thursday of violence if Israel rejected a Palestinian "hand of peace," and called for an international conference on achieving peace.

"I reiterate the sincerity of the Palestinian will in extending the hand of peace to the Israeli people... We should not waste more chances in the history of this long and painful cause," he told the closing ceremony of an Arab summit.

"The entire region will be under renewed threats of war, explosions, as well as regional and international confrontations, as a result of the absence of a solution or the impossibility of implementing one," Abbas added.

"We hope our summit would result in the formation of an Arab committee headed by the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the head of the summit, to follow up implementation of the Arab initiative," he said, referring to an Arab land-for-peace proposal.

He called for a "negotiated settlement that will be sponsored by the international community and within the framework of an international peace conference in the region."

Arabs approve Arab peace plan
Arab leaders gathering for a two-day summit in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday unanimously approved the Saudi peace initiative originally launched in 2002.

Abbas voted in favor of the initiative, although Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas abstained in the vote.

At the summit, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah called for an end to the international blockade on the Palestinian government. The king said: "It has become necessary to end the unjust blockade imposed on the Palestinian people as soon as possible so the peace process can proceed."

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, on Wednesday urged Arab states to be flexible in their land-for-peace offer to Israel. Addressing the Arab summit, Solana called for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries.

He called the Arab initiative a general concept that has to be developed. He also urged Arabs and Israel to deal with the plan as a starting point in negotiations.

In a written message to the Arab leaders gathered in Riyadh, Solana said the EU hopes all the members of the Arab League will fulfill their responsibilities and contribute to the success of this enterprise. "Failure to rise to today's challenges will put the Middle East at risk of missing the train of human and economic development," he said in the message.

Before arriving in Riyadh, Solana expressed optimism that the relaunched initiative could reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. Solana's presence at the summit was designed to highlight the European Union's support for the peace initiative, officials said.

Saudis: Rejection of Arab plan is rejection of peace
If Israel rejects the Arab peace initiative, it means it is not interested in reaching a peaceful solution with its neighbors, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Wednesday. Speaking at the summit, al-Faisal said, "If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace."

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh urged Arab leaders not to compromise on the Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes in Israel, a clause in the initiative which Israel has asked to modify. "I expect the Arab summit meeting to reiterate the Arab countries' commitment not to compromise on the Palestinian refugees right of return," Haniyeh said.

At the summit, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Arab leaders to prove they were serious about peace with Israel by reviving their five-year-old initiative.

"The Arab peace initiative is one of the pillars for the peace process... This initiative sends a signal that the Arabs are serious about achieving peace," Ban told Arab leaders.

"When I was in Israel I urged my Israeli friends to take a new look at the initiative. Here in Riyadh, I also urge you, my Arab friends, to benefit from this initiative and reiterate your commitment to it," he said.

At the summit, Arab League chief Amr Moussa urged Israel to accept the initiative rather than ask for changes. "The Israeli response was to ask for an amendment. We tell them to accept it first," Moussa told Arab leaders. "We are at a crossroads - either we move toward a real peace or see an escalation in the situation."

UPDATE: Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told

Israel abruptly cancels Vatican negotiating session.
Has Israel changed it's position and aligned with Islam?
Islamic Leader makes last minute cancellation of visit to Vatican Pope Benedict.
Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq
Israel snubs Condoleezza Rice
US open to separate dialogue with Arabs
Bush Alienates Closest U.S. Allies
---
By David Blair, in Riyadh

Last Updated: 1:38am BST 28/03/2007

Audio: David Blair on the Saudi warning The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday. As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails. Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967. This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer. "What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally." Speaking inside his whitewashed palace, surrounded by luxuriant lawns and manicured flower beds resembling a green oasis in the drabness of Riyadh, Prince Saud delivered an unequivocal warning to Israel. advertisement "If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said. Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said. "Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved? "The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace." Israel has numerous reservations about the Arab peace plan - which was previously proposed at a summit in 2002. Israel fears any hint that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homes in the event of a peace settlement. Prince Saud is the 66-year-old son of the late King Faisal. Relieved of the need to seek re-election, he has held office for 32 years. Flush with oil money, Saudi Arabia is playing a more assertive role in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As well as securing the Arab peace plan, the Kingdom brokered the agreement between Hamas and Fatah - the two Palestinian factions - to form a unity government. But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom's oil boom. The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is quietly moving to contain its bellicose neighbour. Prince Saud offered conciliatory words to Iran, laced with coded criticism. "We have no inhibitions about the role of Iran," he said. "It is a large country. It wants to play a leading role in the region, and it has every right to do so. It is an historic country. But if you want to reach for leadership, you have to make sure that those you are leading are having their interests taken care of and not damaged." Saudi Arabia has privately urged Iran to stop enriching uranium, in compliance with United Nations resolutions and lay to rest any suggestion that it is seeking nuclear weapons. Prince Saud called for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" with "no exceptions for anybody, be it Israel or Iran". Asked whether the kingdom would consider seeking nuclear weapons of its own if Iran managed to acquire a bomb, Prince Saud replied: "We have made it very clear that we are not going down that road under any circumstances." He paused for a moment, before adding, "under any foreseeable circumstances".

Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told

Israel abruptly cancels Vatican negotiating session.
Has Israel changed its position and aligned with Islam?
Islamic Leader makes last minute cancellation of visit to Vatican Pope Benedict.
Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq
Israel snubs Condoleezza Rice
US open to separate dialogue with Arabs
Bush Alienates Closest U.S. Allies
---
By David Blair, in Riyadh

Last Updated: 1:38am BST 28/03/2007

Audio: David Blair on the Saudi warning The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday. As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails. Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967. This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer. "What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally." Speaking inside his whitewashed palace, surrounded by luxuriant lawns and manicured flower beds resembling a green oasis in the drabness of Riyadh, Prince Saud delivered an unequivocal warning to Israel. advertisement "If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said. Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said. "Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved? "The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace." Israel has numerous reservations about the Arab peace plan - which was previously proposed at a summit in 2002. Israel fears any hint that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homes in the event of a peace settlement. Prince Saud is the 66-year-old son of the late King Faisal. Relieved of the need to seek re-election, he has held office for 32 years. Flush with oil money, Saudi Arabia is playing a more assertive role in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As well as securing the Arab peace plan, the Kingdom brokered the agreement between Hamas and Fatah - the two Palestinian factions - to form a unity government. But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom's oil boom. The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is quietly moving to contain its bellicose neighbour. Prince Saud offered conciliatory words to Iran, laced with coded criticism. "We have no inhibitions about the role of Iran," he said. "It is a large country. It wants to play a leading role in the region, and it has every right to do so. It is an historic country. But if you want to reach for leadership, you have to make sure that those you are leading are having their interests taken care of and not damaged." Saudi Arabia has privately urged Iran to stop enriching uranium, in compliance with United Nations resolutions and lay to rest any suggestion that it is seeking nuclear weapons. Prince Saud called for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" with "no exceptions for anybody, be it Israel or Iran". Asked whether the kingdom would consider seeking nuclear weapons of its own if Iran managed to acquire a bomb, Prince Saud replied: "We have made it very clear that we are not going down that road under any circumstances." He paused for a moment, before adding, "under any foreseeable circumstances".

Conspiracy of silence in the Arab world

Robert Fisk

Where are the sheikhs when the Iraqi dead are fished out of the Tigris?

Published: 10 February 2007

Could Rifaat al-Assad's day in court be growing closer? Yes, Rifaat - or Uncle Rifaat to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria - the man whose brother Hafez hurled him from Damascus after he tried to use his special forces troops to stage a coup. They were the same special forces who crushed the Islamist rebellion in Hama in February 1982, slaughtering up to - well, a few thousand, according to the regime, at least 10,000 according to Fisk (who was there) and up 20,000 if you believe The New York Times (which I generally don't).

Either way, I've always regarded it as a war crime, along with the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila camps in Beirut by Israel's Lebanese militia allies a few months later. Ariel Sharon, who was held personally responsible by Israel's own court of enquiry, is an unindicted war criminal. So is Rifaat.

That's why the faintest breeze blew through my fax machine this week when I received a letter sent to the UN Secretary General by Malik al-Abdeh, head of the London-based Movement for Justice and Development in Syria. Abdeh left his Syrian town of Zabadani before the Hama massacres - he works now as an IT consultant for a multinational - so he's hardly able to breathe the air of Sister Syria. But then again nor can Rifaat, who languishes - complete with bodyguards - in that nice EU island of refuge called Marbella. And refuge he probably needs. Because Abdeh is asking the UN to institute an enquiry into the Hama bloodbath in the same way that it is powering along with its tribunal into the murder almost two years ago of Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

Ouch. In the letter Abdeh describes how "warplanes and tanks levelled whole districts of the city (of Hama) ... the evidence clearly suggests that government forces made no distinction between armed insurgents and unarmed civilians ... the assault on the city represents a clear act of war crimes and murder on a mass scale". The letter has now been passed to the UN's legal head, Nicolas Michel, who is also involved in the Hariri murder case. The sacred name of Rifaat has not been mentioned in the letter but it specifically demands that "those who are responsible should be held accountable and charged...".

Now, of course, there are a few discrepancies in the facts. The Syrians did not use poison gas in Hama, as Abdeh claims. They certainly did level whole areas of the city - they are still level today, although a hotel has been built over one devastated district - and when Rifaat's thugs combed through the ruins later, they executed any civilians who couldn't account for their presence.

But of course, the Hama uprising was also a Sunni Muslim insurrection and the insurgents had murdered entire families of Baath party officials, sometimes by chopping off their heads. In underground tunnels, Muslim girls had exploded themselves among Syrian troops - they were among the Middle East's first suicide bombers although we didn't appreciate that then. And the Americans were not at all unhappy that this Islamist insurgency had been crushed by Uncle Rifaat. Readers will not need any allusion to modern and equally terrible events involving Sunni insurgents to the east of Syria. And since the Americans are getting pretty efficient at killing civilians along with gunmen, I have a dark suspicion that there won't be any great enthusiasm in Washington for a prosecution over Hama.

But still... What strikes me is not so much the force of Abdeh's letter but that it was written at all. When the Hama massacre occurred, neighbouring Arab states were silent. Although the Sunni prelates of the city called for a religious war, their fellow clerics in Damascus - and, indeed, in Beirut - were silent. Just as the imams and scholars of Islam were silent when the Algerians began to slaughter each other in a welter of head-chopping and security force executions in the 1990s.

Just as they are silent now over the mutual killings in Iraq. Sure, the mass killings of Iraq would not have occurred if we hadn't invaded the country. And I do suspect a few "hidden hands" behind the civil conflict in a nation which never before broke apart. In Algeria, the French spent a lot of time in the early 1960s persuading - quite successfully - their FLN and ALN enemies to murder each other. But where are the sheikhs of Al-Azhar and the great Arabian kingdoms when the Iraqi dead are fished out of the Tigris and cut down in their thousands in Baghdad, Kerbala, Baquba? They, too, are silent.

Not a word of criticism. Not a hint of concern. Not a scintilla (an Enoch Powell word, this) of sympathy. An Israeli bombardment of Lebanon? Even an Israeli invasion? That's a war crime - and the Arabs are right, the Israelis do commit war crimes. I saw the evidence of quite a few last summer. But when does Arab blood become less sacred? Why, when it is shed by Arabs. It's not just a failure of self-criticism in the Arab world. In a landscape ruled by monsters whom we in the West have long supported, criticism of any kind is a dodgy undertaking. But can there not be one small sermon of reprobation for what Iraqi Muslims are doing to Iraqi Muslims?

Of course, but the real problem the Arabs now face is that their lands have been overrun and effectively occupied by Western armies. I worked out a few weeks ago that, per head of population - and the world was smaller in the 12th century - there are now about 22 times more Western soldiers in Muslim lands than there were at the time of the Crusades. How do you strike back at these legions and drive them out? Brutally and most terribly, the Iraqis have shown how. I used to say the future of the Bush administration will be decided in Iraq, not in Washington. And this now appears to be true.

So what should we do? Allow the Rifaats of this world to go on enjoying Marbella? And the killers of Hariri go free? And the Arabs remain silent in the face of the shameful atrocities which their brother Muslims have also committed? I'll take a bet that Rifaat will be safe from the UN lads. In Iraq right now, he'd be on "our" side, wouldn't he, battling the Islamic insurgency as he did in Hama? And that, I fear, is the problem. We are all Rifaats now.

Time to say no

To continue kowtowing to the US administration's demands over Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine would be suicidal, writes Hassan Nafaa

---

Gaping wounds in some of the most sensitive areas of the Arab world, most notably in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, have begun to suppurate. The current American administration, headed by a clique of anti-Arab Islamophobes, will stop at nothing, out of deference to Israel and commitment to the Christian-Zionist preaching in which they believe so fervently. This same administration believes the fact that neither the president's nor the vice-president's running for re-election gives them greater freedom of movement, at least until the electoral campaigns officially kick-off in February a year from now. Until then they will steamroll through measures in an attempt to complete an enterprise refuse to admit they have failed. And such is the catatonic stupor into which Arab regimes have fallen that they are prepared to allow the same doctor who caused the disease to treat their wounds.

Two factors forced Bush to re-adjust his policy and plans for Iraq and the region. The Baker- Hamilton report, drafted by a joint Democratic- Republican commission, concluded the administration's policy was a fiasco and demanded changes. Then, the Republicans lost their majority in both houses of Congress just as the growing anti-war movement was reminding the American public of the failings of the Vietnam era. In response, Bush dug in his heels. Instead of cooperating with Iran and Syria to restore an element of calm in order to pave the way for an honourable withdrawal, as the Baker-Hamilton report recommended, he did the opposite, ordering 20,000 more US troops to Iraq, two aircraft carriers to the Gulf, and furnishing his friends in the neighbourhood with anti-missile defence systems. Such moves were obviously in preparation for a military strike against Iran and the tightening of the siege around Syria, yet Bush was confident of his allies' support. Just in case, though, he sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on another tour of the region.

Here was the envoy of supposedly the greatest democracy on earth appealing to foreign friends in order to tip the scale of American public opinion back in favour of the executive after Congress had won the first round. The close observer might have detected Rice's inward sneer as she discovered how immeasurably more malleable decision-makers in this part of the world are than lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Certainly she shed no tears. Quite the opposite: she was delighted, full of confidence, pleased to see eight Arab foreign ministers climbing over one another in Kuwait to declare their support for America's "new" plans for Iraq and for the region. She had grounds for her confidence. She knows, after all, that she is the only person capable of getting this number of Arab foreign ministers to meet in any place she designates, in the Arab world or abroad, at the snap of her fingers. Perhaps, too, she felt a measure of malicious glee as she watched them fight to win her favour, in the full knowledge that while each and everyone of them is a member of the Arab League they would never come together on their own initiative in order to develop an independent policy to further their common interests.

When the rush of Arab governments to support an American policy that American society itself deplores stirred angry reactions among sectors of Arab public opinion, various diplomatic quarters tried to stem the damage. Some Arab foreign ministers, for example, tried to convey the impression that their support was qualified, that it was contingent upon results on the ground.

It was hardly convincing. Governments generally formulate policies on the basis of considerations and expectations that have not yet been put to the test. When other governments come out in support of those policies they are committing themselves, as partners, to working for its success regardless of what the future may bring. And just as they anticipate sharing the fruits of the policy, should it succeed, they must also be prepared to sustain their share of losses should it fail.

The Bush plan entails actions hostile to both Iran and Syria. To support it is to side unequivocally against these two countries. The same applies to the fact that the plan is opposed by the majority of the American people, not to mention powers such as China, Russia and the EU.

Bush's reckless adventurism is well known and the tide of opposition to his policy will swell further, both at home and abroad. While this makes failure even more likely it will not forestall the disasters that will undoubtedly be inflicted on Arabs and Muslims. So certain is the prognosis that it is only possible to wonder at the considerations upon which Arab regimes base their support of US policy. The most obvious premises for their behaviour are probably the right ones: first, they think Iran's expansionist designs more dangerous than the Zionist version, and second, they believe the need to placate the US in order to sustain their strategic relationships with Washington outstrips all other regional and international considerations.

Without underestimating the potential threat to the Arab world of Iran's growing power and influence, it is impossible to accept this presents a greater peril than the Zionist enterprise. The best way for the Arabs to confront Tehran's regional power bid is not to fall in with US-Israeli plans to strike Iran but to establish a unified Arab policy towards Iran. This would involve opening a dialogue with Tehran, to which end they would have to rely on Syria. A strike against Iran, by the US and/or Israel, may weaken Iran temporarily but it will not strengthen the hand of any Arab power. It could easily plunge the entire region into a state of chaos, triggering any number of local civil wars if not a full-fledged regional war.

Arab leaders who believed the claims that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein would eliminate one of the greatest impediments to regional stability should look at what has in fact been eliminated. It is Iraq as a state that has been destroyed. And who, apart from Iran and Israel, has gained from the catastrophe that has befallen Iraq? Does it not also follow that the sole beneficiary of any war against Iran will be Israel, for whom the destruction of Iran would come as the most crucial step towards realising Israel's dream of re-organising the Middle East into disparate sectarian-based statelets as it transforms itself into the engineer of their multi-farious rivalries and alliances?

As important as the strategic relationship with the US might be, Arab leaders should realise that Bush and his gang of neo-conservatives are not synonymous with the United States. They are a band of thugs bent on steering the world to unmitigated disaster, a fact grasped by the majority of the American people upon whom it has dawned that this administration is no less fanatical and racist than Hitler and the Nazis. Nor can a strategic relationship be founded upon handing over the determination of the fates of our peoples to the White House, regardless of whether its incumbent is a Democrat or Republican, an extremist or moderate. The US is a mighty power and acts as mighty powers mostly do: it respects the strong and crushes the weak once it can dispense with their services. When will Arab rulers open their eyes to the reality that their current weakness and disarray is hastening the day when the US finds them too much of a burden and drops them? When will they realise that they will never be able to make the transition from a dependent to a partner or build a strategic relationship that is truly mutually beneficent until they demonstrate their ability to effectively play what few cards they have left to their advantage?

Would it be excessive to suggest that the current crisis offers Arab countries that are on good terms with the US a rare opportunity to regain some of their forfeited leverage? I don't think so. This is one of those paradoxes of the current situation though to capitalise on it the ruling elites -- contrary to what they seem to believe -- must summon the resolve to convey to Bush a resounding no, and then enter immediately into talks with Iran, Syria and, perhaps, Turkey. Such a dialogue would seek to promote a range of interrelated objectives: an end to the internecine bloodshed in Palestine, the creation of a national unity government and the immediate lifting of the economic blockade on the Palestinian people; an end to the Lebanese crisis by pressuring rival parties to return to the negotiation table with the purpose of resolving their differences and safeguarding Lebanese independence while simultaneously ensuring Syria's security requirements; a reconciliation between rival Iraqi factions so as to preserve Iraq's territorial integrity and set in motion a new political process that will lead to a government that represents Iraqis regardless of sectarian affiliations; establishing channels of communication and dialogue with US leaders opposed to Bush's policies in order to generate pressure for an international conference, in which all concerned parties take part, the purpose of which is to resolve, in tandem, all the interconnected crises in the Middle East, and to establish agreed-upon systems for collective and humanitarian security so as to ensure the settlements are acceptable regionally and internationally.

It is mistaken to believe that what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine are civil wars or even the beginning of civil wars. They are political conflicts fuelled by the US-Israeli drive for regional hegemony.

* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

The possible war against Iran

Posted by Imran H. Khan on Jan 28, 2007, 18:04

The Regime change commission within the Bush Administration has unofficially elucidated its case for turning Iran into the new Iraq.

The Regime change commission within the Bush Administration has unofficially elucidated its case for turning Iran into the new Iraq.

Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary and member of the Iraq Study Group, who many thought would make significant moves to end America’s current quagmire will instead make Iran "the target of US military moves in the Persian Gulf." The media has responded admirably in maintaining the assertions made by Bush et al that ‘Iran is the actual enemy and one that is fighting against our troops in Iraq’.† The arrest of Iranian government liaison officers in Northern Iraq facilitates this assertion and provides the oil to fuel this fire!

(No pun intended!)

However, there are two sides to any tale, unless it is about real life and then you have so many angles that it is hard to know where to initiate or terminate the examination! So just like a fairytale this article will examine the pros and cons of a possible war against Iran.

Speaking as an ancillary of neo-conservative thought one can rationalize the argument that in the not too distant future Persian Iran will become the hegemonic power in the midst of the Arab Middle East. The only deterrent preventing Iran from asserting its overt influence on the pitiful Arab states is the fear of a direct conventional attack from powerful European and American allies (and Israel). If Iran were to become a nuclear power then the threat of conventional deterrence becomes nullified. Thus this autocratic, theocracy will eventually subsume its weak and vulnerable neighboring states. The other dangers posed along with this scenario are, according to Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, "…permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?"

These are all credible and considerable concerns that could justify war and military action if the world was painted in black and white!

The Bush Administration is utilizing these concerns as said by Charles Krauthammer "that the US is not winning in Iraq because of Iran." Robert Gates who has effectively replaced Rumsfield as the agent provocateur insists that "The Iranians are acting in a very negative way".

There seems to be a certain amount of deja vu. In shifting focus and attention from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein the same arguments and techniques were used to justify the war in Iraq! Thus one must query the rationale in attacking Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan are proving to be an embarrassment and a gaping wound on the Bush Administration’s record. There is no reason to suggest that the US and its nominal allies will ever be able to occupy Iran. President Bush has publicly admitted the shortcomings of the war in Iraq; his public profile is fast becoming associated with tyrants and sycophants. President Bush needs a victory and Iran, according to Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to Reagan, will let him have it in order to gain the long-run victory.

The former bureaucrat believes that "Bush will be able to claim victory over Iran, because Iran will avoid responding militarily. Iran will not use its Russian missiles to sink our aircraft carriers, to shut down oil facilities throughout the Middle East, or to destroy US headquarters in the "green zone" in Baghdad.† Instead, Iran will adopt the posture of another Muslim victim of US/Israeli aggression and let the anger seep throughout the Muslim world until no pro-US government is safe in the Middle East."

This could be wishful thinking or an astute long-term strategy, only time will tell but history certainly backs this observation.

DAVOS - Arab League's Moussa warns U.S. against Iran attack

DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The threat of a U.S. attack on Iran is very serious and would risk spreading sectarian violence throughout the Middle East, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said on Wednesday.

"It's a 50/50 proposition, and we hope that it won't happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive," Moussa told Reuters at the World Economic Forum.

U.S. President George Bush in his State of the Union address on Tuesday spoke of an "escalating danger" from Shi'ite extremists, many taking direction from Iran. Bush called them just as dangerous to the United States as al Qaeda.

Moussa advocated dialogue rather than military action to resolve both Iraq and U.S.-Iranian tensions.

"If there were to be a war, other genies will get out of the bottle. You cannot imagine the impact on the Gulf countries, on the Mediterranean," Moussa said.

His concern over an looming U.S.-Iran confrontation was shared by business leaders and political commentators at an opening session on the Middle East at the Forum, an annual gathering of the world's rich and powerful.

Some said it would risk sectarian divisions spilling over and ripping at the fabric of other nations, such as Lebanon, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. It would also undermine strong economic growth in many Arab countries in the past three years. This growth is important for stabilising the region, they said.

One panellist said a serious danger would be any crash in the crude oil price, engineered by Saudi Arabia, to squeeze Iran's finances as a way to bring the country to its knees.

As a major crude producer, Iran relies heavily on oil revenues. These have soared since crude prices roughly doubled in the past three years, almost reaching $80 a barrel last summer before retreating to the mid $50s currently.

Moussa also said that Bush's plan to build up troops in Iraq and pursue a military solution will not resolve sectarian clashes that are ripping the country apart, he said.

"Iraq is broken," Moussa said.

He proposed a diplomatic solution, advocating a United Nations' Security Council resolution that Iraq should not be partitioned, an agreement on reconciliation and amendment to its constitution.