Soccer Dad

Saudi peace fraud - continued

Fouad Siniora, Prime Minister of Lebanon, Friday, weighed in with an op-ed advising Israel to submit to the Saudi plan in the New York Times.

Last week, Israel’s Winograd Commission published an interim report scrutinizing Israel’s conduct during what it called the country’s most recent military “campaign.” But the report failed to draw the most essential lesson from the July war and the wars that preceded it: military action does not give the people of Israel security. On the contrary, it compromises it. The only way for the people of Israel and the Arab world to achieve stability and security is through a comprehensive peace settlement to the overarching Arab-Israeli conflict.

This of course echoes the implication of the NYTimes own editorial about the Winograd commission that Israel ought not defend itself.

In dismissing the op-ed Jewlicious observes tongue in cheekily

Of course, what he’s not telling you is that when a state doesn’t recognize your existence or put you on maps, its pretty easy for them not to want to wipe you off the map.

Israel Matzav correctly notes one of the frustrating aspects of the "peace" proposal

First, what the Arab League is offering is 'full recognition' of Israel. Note that this is not even the 'full diplomatic relations' that were offered in the original Saudi proposal in 2002. What does 'recognition' mean? Does it mean that Israel will be shown as a country on maps in the Arab world? Does it mean that the Arab media will stop inciting children to blow themselves up in order to destroy Israel? Does it mean an exchange of ambassadors and bilateral trade? (Probably not). None of that has been fleshed out. And that's a problem because the Saudis and the Arab League treat this plan as "take it or leave it" and have threatened violence if Israel "leaves it."

Exactly. I've noted before that the Saudi proposal is very specific in what it demands of Israel and very nebulous about what is offered in return for those specific demands. And that's the other problem, it is a list of demand. It's an ultimatum, not a peace offer.

JoshuaPundit also uses the term "ultimatum" and adds a few practical problems with the Saudi plan too.

First there's is Siniora's blatant lie (among many others) that the Saudi ultimatum seeks only to establish a Palestinian state `only 22 percent of historic Palestine' which completely ignores the 80% the Arabs already own in a country established for them by the British called Jordan.

Secondly, there's the little fact that the Arabs never accepted Israel's establishment in 1948, let alone the 1967 lines, and Israel is supposed to move back to indefensible borders strictly on the word of the Arabs that they've now changed their minds, and before any `normal relations' occur.

Then there's the fact that the Saudis and Siniora are shilling for the `right of return' for millions of hostile Arabs - supposedly the refugees and their descendants - to Israel, ignoring the rights and claims of the almost one million Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world after 1948. And, to add to the mix, this is supposed to occur while Israel is footing the multi-billion dollar bill for uprooting thousands of its own citizens!

It's possible to be sympathetic to Siniora. After all he serves at the pleasure of Bashar Assad and can hardly stray too far from Assad's plantation. He knows too well what happened to Rafik Hariri when the former Syrian puppet got too uppity and started advocating for his native land instead of his overlord. But that doesn't mean that he ought to be free from criticism. Siniora writes

This is a high price but one the Arabs are willing to pay, as it is the only realistic path to peace that conforms to all United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions addressing the conflict, and ensures the right of return of the Palestinian people. The Arab states are not seeking to wipe Israel off the map. Rather, we are seeking the legitimate goals of an armistice, secure borders and the ability of all of the region’s people to live in peace and security.

The "high price" he's referring to is the Arab world's supposed acceptance of Israel's right to exist in land they now call Palestine. But what's absolutely false is that the Saudi initiative conforms to all Security Council resolutions. It does not. And the reason it doesn't is the reason that the Saudi initiative cannot be taken seriously.

On March 29, 2002, the NY Times's UN correspondent Barbara Crossette reported ("Mideast Turmoil: Diplomacy Saudi Peace Plan Is Finding Resistance in U.N.")

Some provisions in the plan run counter to existing Security Council resolutions, an official here said. Among these is the call by the Saudi plan for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The Council does not consider Israel to be in control of any Lebanese land after the Israeli withdrawal from the border area two years ago. In Beirut this week, Lebanon revived its claim to a small part of the Israeli-held Golan Heights known as the Sheba Farms.

The language about Israel withdrawing from Lebanese territory wasn't originally part of the Saudi initiative. It was added as Crown Prince Abdullah toured the Arab world to drum up support for his proposal. When he got to Syria, Bashar Assad insisted that the language be added. (The perversity of Assad's demand is striking. Syria controlled - and to some degree still controls - Lebanon and Assad was nonetheless willing to cede territory to Lebanon, just to make the Saudi initiative less likely.)

In essence by accepting Assad's language, Abdullah did two things:
1) He changed the terms of his initiative to accommodate the Syrian thug.
2) He denied the (legal) significance of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, enabling Hezbollah to maintain a pretext for continuing to harass Israel.

With that inauspicious start, Israel is being asked by Lebanon's Prime Minister, to follow the Saudi initiative. Lebanon is the country that didn't fulfill its part of Security Council 425, which called for, not just Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon but the assertion of Lebanon's authority over Southern Lebanon and disarming of Hezbollah.

With this precedent it appears that the Saudi initiative is a castle built on ever shifting sands. If any party (from the Arab side) wishes to change the terms to Israel's detriment; it will. Israel could make significant concessions and then find that King Abdullah or someone else doesn't approve and the Israeli concession will be declared insufficient.

The Forvm sums up his assessment neatly

In short, the op-ed is a PR play. Siniora does not mention Hezbollah once; he does not accept any responsibility for the war; he does not condemn terrorist acts against Israel. His tone is hardline, not moderate...

That's it, in a nutshell.

UPDATE: A commenter below presents a much more generous view of the Saudi initiative at is website Prose before Hos.

Israel, lebanon, Fouad Siniora, Saudi Arabia, Security Council Resolution 425.