Israel Matzav: The pompous little king#links#links

The pompous little king

The Wall Street Journal interviewed King Abdullah of Jordan on the eve of this trip to the United States for President Obama's nuclear disarmament conference. For those who, like me, do not have subscriptions to the Journal, you can find the full interview on the website of the Jordanian embassy to the United States here.

What's most striking about this interview is how the man whose family was handed 77% of the Palestine Mandate in 1921 totally writes off the problem of the 'Palestinians' who make up 70% of his own population. 'You have to solve it' says King Abdullah. 'A lot of people in the US want us to take in 'Palestinians' (that link explains why I always put the term 'Palestinian' in scare quotes) but that would be destabilizing.' Thus the implant from the Gulf writes off all responsibility for the Bedouin tribes who make up most of his country's population.

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, there's a full explanation here.

WSJ: When you meet with the president, what is your message as far how to get the peace process going? Do you want the U.S. to come in and say: These are the parameters; let's get going; we're wasting too much time?

HM KING ABDULLAH I think wasting too much time is something that we all have to be very concerned about because there is tremendous tension (in the region). Over the Israeli-Lebanese border; if you spoke (to some Lebanese) today they feel there is going to be a war any second. (It) Looks like there is an attempt by certain groups to promote a third intifada, which would be disastrous. Jerusalem as you are well aware is a tinderbox that could go off at any time, and then there is the overriding concern about military action between Israel and Iran.

So with all these things in the background, the status quo is not acceptable; what will happen is that we will continue to go around in circles until the conflict erupts, and there will be suffering by peoples because there will be a war. On the U.S. side, obviously, American domestic politics has been a priority for the administration and I think that's very well understood. The economic challenges have also not helped in prioritizing the peace process. having said that I know very well that Obama and his administration are extremely committed to the two-state solution and moving the process forward. But they've had other things to deal with on their shoulders. The problem is what happens over the next couple of months. ...

The job of Jordan and the other countries in the international community is to keep common sense and keep hope alive until America can bring its full weight on the Israelis and the Palestinians to get their act together and move the process forward.

We're sort of the power brigade … us and other countries, trying to see where issues of contention between Israelis and Palestinians and make the atmosphere more amiable. With the background that evil does not sleep. There are those out there on all sides unfortunately, rejectionists, I think that's maybe a good term to use these days, who will do everything they can to spoil the future of Israelis and the Palestinians.

Let's assume that the deal that 'everyone knows' is going to happen (everyone doesn't know - the 'Palestinians' have never agreed to anything including minor adjustments to the map, but I'll ignore that for the time being) is the following: A 'Palestinian state' is established in the parts of Israel that are outside the 1949 armistice line, with minor border adjustments. Jerusalem is divided into Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, with Israel retaining control over Jewish neighborhoods constructed in Jerusalem since 1967. Other than that, the 'Palestinian state' gets 100% of Judea and Samaria and 100% of Gaza. In return, the 'Palestinians' drop the claimed 'right of return.' Can we all agree that's essentially what the 'international community' expects to happen? Very good then.

If the 'Palestinians' drop the claimed 'right of return,' that leaves thousands of 'refugees' living in camps in several Arab countries including Jordan. What will happen to them? Who will take them? Not only has Jordan shown no indication of being willing to grant them citizenship, it has actually begun revoking citizenship from 'Palestinians' who received it between 1948 and 1967 and their descendants. Even if the 'Palestinians' wanted to reach a two-state solution (which they don't), they cannot reach it on their own without a commitment from Jordan (and Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, among others) to grant citizenship to the 'Palestinians' who have lived among them for the last 60 years. Is Little Lord Fauntleroy willing to do that? Of course not.

WSJ: What is your message when you meet with the Israelis?

HM KING ABDULLAH I think the long-term future of Israel is in jeopardy unless we solve our problems. Fifty-seven countries in the world, a third of the United Nations, do not recognize Israel. In a way, I think North Korea has better international relations than Israel.

So when you look at the Arab-Islamic peace proposal what you are talking about is 57 nations reaching out to Israel for a long-term future. In America specifically, you hear, well, why doesn't Jordan take the Palestinians into our country? … That would create tremendous instability. So if the Israelis want to push the Palestinians into Jordan, I don't see how that makes sense and how the international community will accept that because that would be an exodus of 1.8 million Palestinians from their homes into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. And that would bring even more instability on their borders. But it still does not solve their long-term problem ... because the Arab-Israeli population in Israel proper, in eight to ten years, will be 50% of Israel. The Israelis have a major challenge on the future of their existence.

Wouldn't it be better today when you're in a stronger position to make peace not only with your neighbors but with the whole Arab-Islamic world than kicking this problem down the road two or three years where your options become reduced? And there are Israelis out there that understand this and are reaching out. They are very concerned. And friends of Israel around the world, of whatever religious background, that also see this calamity being created and are very concerned. America has a saying it's been using; it's time for a bit of tough love for all of us to get this problem solved.

The Journal doesn't even think to ask him why Israel should accept the Saudi plan (to which he alludes) as is. The Saudi plan is a recipe for the end of the Jewish state. It calls for Israel to be shrunk to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and to accept every Arab who claims that he is descended from a 'Palestinian' who left in 1948. We would be inundated with millions of 'Palestinian refugees.' Why on earth would we ever agree to that? So that the 57 members of the OIC would recognize our 'right to exist' for the three months until the next election takes place? That's absurd.

Our options are not going to be reduced so long as we still hold defensible territory and we prevent a 'Palestinian state' from coming into being on any terms other than terms that are acceptable to us. The 'Israeli Arabs' are not going to become 50% or even close to that any time in the foreseeable future. That's a lie. And most Israelis know it. (More here, here, here and here).

WSJ: How different does the language from the Obama administration look from here? Some Arab and Palestinian leaders I talked to are describing the conflict as a national security threat to the U.S., which seems to be a shift that is driving this tough love.

HM KING ABDULLAH It's not a shift. If you look at military and intelligence positions from the 1950s, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been against American national interests. What has happened is that President Bush finally came out and said that the future has to be a two-state solution. And President Obama took it one step forward and said what has been known by all of us for decades: Unless you solve this problem, the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and therefore the Israeli-Arab Muslim problem affects the direct national interest of the United States. I don't think that's gone down to the think tanks and politicians; they don't see it that way. But the generals and the intelligence officers and senior political leaders do realize that unless you solve this problem … I mean, you are involved in two wars in our region. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the core issue and this is the problem we have with American decision-makers. It's always been a challenge of connecting the dots. The Israeli Palestinian issue is used by everyone who has an axe to grind against the West. So resolving this problem does not mean that this evil will evaporate, but definitely, it will take a big chunk out of the challenges that we have in this region.

This is pretty funny. What was the Israeli - 'Palestinian' conflict about in the 1950's? In the 1950's, Abdullah's father and grandfather controlled Judea and Samaria and saw no need to create a 'Palestinian state' because there were no 'Palestinians.' So what was the conflict about then? The same thing it's about now - Israel's existence.

Moreover, the notion that Iran, Hezbullah, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are all acting because they want to help the poor 'Palestinians' is patently absurd. Osama Bin Laden, to use one example, did not even mention Israel when he took credit for 9/11. Afghanistan and Pakistan have nothing to do with Israel (recall General Petraeus' attempt to retract what had been written in his name). Iran has said flat out that they will target the Gulf States, Europe and the US if they can - all of which have nothing to do with the 'Palestinians.' Abdullah's arguments are nonsense.

I'm going to stop here lest this post get so long that no one will read it. I find Abdullah totally infuriating, more so than just about any other Arab leaders. He is simply a pompous ass.

Israel Matzav: The pompous little king