Love of the Land: The myth of the Arab triangle

The myth of the Arab triangle

Tony Badran
NOW Lebanon
04 May '10

The last couple of weeks have shed the spotlight again on the tensions between Egypt and the regional Iranian axis, which includes Syria. The tensions surged with the conviction of Hezbollah cell members by the Egyptian judiciary, as well as with Cairo’s friction with Hamas and the persistence of its strained relations with Syria. Despite talk of reconciliation between Cairo and Damascus, the gap dividing the two states remains wide, as they have conflicting objectives and opposing strategic alignments.

The possibility of Egyptian-Syrian reconciliation had received ample airtime ahead of the Arab Summit in late March, but it amounted to very little. During the summit, the political differences dividing the two states were on display, pitting Egypt and Syria in opposing camps on key issues such as Palestinian politics, the resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, their respective positions on “resistance,” and, in general, Syria’s strategic position within the Iranian camp.

In the end, the Egyptians and Syrians only agreed to stop media campaigns against each other, which had reached a fevered pitch. It was speculated that the freeze in media wars was to pave the way for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to visit his Egyptian counterpart, Hosni Mubarak, who had undergone surgery.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The myth of the Arab triangle

Love of the Land: Obama’s Disgraceful Conduct Toward Israel

Obama’s Disgraceful Conduct Toward Israel

P. David Hornik
Frontpagemag.com
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

On Wednesday night in Washington Israeli and American officials worked feverishly—but failed—to produce a document stating Israel’s commitments regarding proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. was reportedly supposed to take the document to the Palestinians and then to the Arab League meeting in Tripoli, Libya, this weekend.

Days earlier Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had outlined such commitments in a letter to secretary of state Hillary Clinton. It was deemed insufficient and, in Washington, President Barack Obama sent Netanyahu and his accompanying officials back to the drawing board. According to one report, Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman advised Netanyahu not to sign any such document that night, and to wait to return home and discuss the matter with the Israeli inner cabinet.

The commitments Obama seeks are variously reported to be: some sort of Israeli undertaking about a construction moratorium in the West Bank (where one is already in place) and East Jerusalem; a promise to engage in such final-status issues as refugees, borders, and Jerusalem in the proximity talks; and “gestures” to the Palestinian Authority such as the removal of additional checkpoints and the freeing of Palestinian security prisoners.

The pressures Obama directed at Netanyahu were severe, in one account even inducing a “panic” reaction in the Israeli leader. The total media blackout that accompanied their meeting led the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl to comment that “Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arm’s length.” Obama was further riled by news about an approval to build 20 apartments for Jews in a compound in East Jerusalem owned by an American Jewish millionaire since 1985—situated in a mostly-Arab neighborhood.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Obama’s Disgraceful Conduct Toward Israel

Love of the Land: What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II

What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
23 March '10

The Palestinian Authority and most of the Arab governments have not missed a chance since US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel to remind us that construction of 1,600 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, as well as the renovation of an ancient synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, would trigger a "third intifada" or, even worse, an all-out war in the Middle East -- and is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East.

It is funny to see countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt condemn Israel for being an "apartheid" state and for restricting freedom of religion. These countries, along with the Palestinian Authority and predominantly Islamic countries, should be the last to talk about "apartheid," freedom of religion bad persecution of minorities.

Of all Arab and Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia is often described as a "glaring example of religious apartheid."

Although Saudi authorities allow Christians to enter the country as temporary workers, they don’t permit them to practice their faith. Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are prohibited. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death. Saudi Arabia does not allow non-Muslim clergy to enter the kingdom country for the purpose of conducting religious services. Christians, and other non-Muslims, are prohibited from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina.

In Riyadh, the death sentence against a Lebanese charged with "sorcery" has just been re-confirmed. The man, Ali Hussein Sibat, a father of five, is a former host of a popular call-in-show that aired on a Lebanese satellite TV channel. H was arrested by Saudi Arabia’s religious police and charged with sorcery while visiting the country in May 2008. According to his lawyer, Sibat’s only crime was the he used to predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.

The real threat to peace in the Middle East is the absence of freedom, democracy and transparency in the Arab and Islamic world.

(Read full article)

Related: What about the Arab apartheid? Part 1

Love of the Land: What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II

RubinReports: The Saudi Foreign Minister Explains the New Middle East

The Saudi Foreign Minister Explains the New Middle East

Seeking subscriber 9,468. Join up now

By Barry Rubin

Here's today's evidence that we are now living in Middle East 2.0 instead of the old version.

First, a definition:

Middle East 1.0: Characterized by Arab nationalist domination, competition among the strongerArab states to lead the region and by the weaker ones trying to survive those campaigns. Arab-Israeli conflict is a real enterprise. Roughly 1952-2000 or so. International aspect: Cold War competition between the United States and USSR and, near the end, US as sole superpower.

Middle East 2.0: Characterized by a battle between Arab nationalist regimes and revolutionary Islamists. An Iran-led bloc (Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Iraqi insurgents) seeking regional hegemony. Israel and most Arab states have parallel interests; Arab states (except for Syria) put low priority on conflict. International aspect: Will the West support the moderates or appease the radicals.

The latest occasion is an interview of Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. Of course, there are the usual rhetorical flourishes about Israel but the passion and focus is clearly on Iran and various Islamist terrorists. (“There is nothing wrong with keeping the terrorists on the run,” says the prince.)

This is the same man who told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that sanctions would be too slow in stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the United States better do something quick. Here he says he prefers a resolution through the UN but it isn't clear what that means.

It's funny that in the West the region is being discussed, written about, and taught as if we were back in the 1970s. There is a particular obsession with the idea that everything is about the Arab-Israeli conflict. But if the Saudis talk like this publicly (you can imagine what they say privately) it's a sign of how changed everything is in Middle East 2.0's world.

Read this carefully. The prince says:

“There are no troops arrayed on the border of Israel waiting for the moment to say, ‘Attack Israel. Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace. But they didn’t accept that. So it makes one wonder, what does Israel want?”


Now you can take this as propaganda, and of course Israel does have a lot to worry about: Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Arab countries being overthrown by Islamist warmongers, nuclear weapons, terrorism, and agreeing to a Palestinian state that then begins phase two of an effort to destroy Israel. It also needs agreement that any peace treaty permanently end the conflict, that Palestinian refugee be resettled in Palestine, that a Palestinian state is really going to block cross-border raids, and that foeign armies (notably those of Iran and Syria) aren't going to enter the West Bank.

Even Dowd, not known as being sympathetic to Israel, understand some of this and makes the remarkable statement: "If anyone deserves to be paranoid, of course, it’s Israel. But Israel can’t be paranoid because paranoia is the mistaken perception that people are out to get you."

But Faisal isn't just trying to score points. He is trying to get across the point that Saudi Arabia's government doesn't want a war with Israel and prefer the conflict to go away. It can't and won't make a formal peace but the Saudis certainly don't think the way they did decades ago.

And when Faisal talks about “no troops arrayed on the border....Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace," how does that look if one subtitutes Saudi Arabia for Israel? The Saudis and other Gulf Arab states (along with Lebanon and Iraq) are now on the front line and under threat more than Israel is right now. Faisal know it and so should we all.

RubinReports: The Saudi Foreign Minister Explains the New Middle East

Love of the Land: Dowd Goes Around the Bend

Dowd Goes Around the Bend

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
03 March '10

Goodness knows whether Maureen Dowd’s latest column — a noxious propaganda brew on behalf of the Kingdom of Saud and its foreign minister’s ludicrous moral relativism – was born of abject ignorance or whether she was sent trolling for Saudi money to help her employer’s bottom line. Or maybe she’s trying to out-Friedman her colleague when it comes to ingratiating herself with despotic abusers of human rights. Doesn’t really matter. From Dowd we hear unfiltered this argument:

The Middle Eastern foreign minister was talking about enlightened “liberal” trends in his country, contrasting that with the benighted “extreme” conservative religious movement in a neighboring state.

But the wild thing was that the minister was Prince Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia — an absolute Muslim monarchy ruling over one of the most religiously and socially intolerant places on earth — and the country he deemed too “religiously determined” and regressive was the democracy of Israel.

“We are breaking away from the shackles of the past,” the prince said, sitting in his sprawling, glinting ranch house with its stable of Arabian horses and one oversized white bunny. “We are moving in the direction of a liberal society. What is happening in Israel is the opposite; you are moving into a more religiously oriented culture and into a more religiously determined politics and to a very extreme sense of nationhood,” which was coming “to a boiling point.”

She gets in her swipe at Israel, sniffing that it is “growing less secular with religious militants and the chief rabbinate that would like to impose a harsh and exclusive interpretation of Judaism upon the entire society” and hissing that in “Orthodox synagogues, some men still say a morning prayer thanking God for not making them a woman.” And then she proceeds to assure us that while Gloria Steinem wouldn’t applaud Saudi Arabia as a feminist paradise, “I can confirm that, at their own galactically glacial pace, they are chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression.”

Oh really? Perhaps she had not heard about or was not permitted a peak at the real Saudi Arabia. From a more discerning eye, another perspective is in order:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Dowd Goes Around the Bend

DoubleTapper: British Cyclist Deliberately Run Over in Saudi Arabia

British Cyclist Deliberately Run Over in Saudi Arabia

A British man has been killed after youths allegedly rammed a car into a group of friends who were cycling in Saudi Arabia.

John Currie, who worked for BAE Systems – formerly British Aerospace – is believed to have been one four cyclists who started being "cut up" by local youths in two cars on a main road on the outskirts of Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

Initially, it is understood that one of the cars clipped a cyclist causing him to fall off his bike. Then, however, one of the drivers is alleged to have turned around and deliberately ploughed his car into the cyclists.

Mr Currie, 54, a human resources worker, is said to have been smashed against the vehicle's windscreen in the incident on Thursday, and later died from his serious injuries. His widow, Pauline, was returning to Britain this weekend.

The couple, from Chester, Cheshire, are believed to have two grown-up children. Mr Currie's body will be flown home for a funeral service.

In the past 15 years, there have been a number of terrorist attacks on British and other western nationals in Saudi Arabia by Muslim extremists. Several westerners have been killed – and even more injured – in a series of bombs and gun attacks. Radicals are angry that US and British oil companies and their staff are operating on Saudi soil.

In one incident, Simon Cumbers, 36, an Irish freelance cameraman, was shot dead and Frank Gardner, the BBC's security correspondent, was critically injured by apparent al-Qaeda sympathisers as they filmed in Riyadh in 2004.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) confirmed the death on Saturday. A spokesman said: "A British national, John Currie, died in a road traffic accident on Feb 25 and we were informed. We have offered consular assistance to the family." Sources at the FCO said it would be for the Saudi authorities to determine if there was a "guilty party" involved in the incident.

BAE has also confirmed Mr Currie's death. The company employs 4,500 staff in Saudi Arabia, including around 2,000 Britons.

A company spokesman said: "We can confirm that John Currie was a BAE Systems employee who worked for the HR team in Saudi Arabia and was involved in a road accident last week. Our thoughts and feelings are with his family and friends. The Saudi authorities are now investigating the case and it would be inappropriate for BAE Systems to comment any further."

Company sources say that the arrest of an individual in such circumstances would not necessarily mean that criminal charges will follow. "Under Sharia law – the Muslim law – the driver is arrested even if it is an accident," said one source. "Under Sharia law too, he may have to pay a certain amount [to the family of the victim] depending on whose fault it was."

DoubleTapper: British Cyclist Deliberately Run Over in Saudi Arabia

Love of the Land: J Street

J Street

Some background info about today's cartoon:
1.The "J" in J Street does not stand for "Jewish".

Want to learn more? Click here for full background info.

Of related interest: Im Tirzu: NIF NGOs made up bulk of Goldstone testimonies

Love of the Land: J Street

Love of the Land: Threatening Israel Isn’t Enough Anymore

Threatening Israel Isn’t Enough Anymore

Michael J. Totten
Contentions/Commentary
29 January '10

Iran’s tyrant Ali Khamenei posted a comment on his website (yes, even he’s doing it now) predicting the inevitable destruction of Israel, a task he generally delegates to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Definitely, the day will come when nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime,” he wrote. “How soon or late … depends on how Islamic countries and Muslim nations approach the issue.”

Israelis should be pleased to hear they’ll be allowed to exist a bit longer if Saudi Arabia dithers. And Saudi Arabia is going to dither for a long time.

According to the Financial Times, a majority of citizens in 18 Arab countries think Iran is more dangerous than Israel. And according to a report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a substantial number of Saudi citizens are even willing to support military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.

A third of Saudi respondents say they would approve an American strike, and a fourth say they’d back an Israeli strike. The actual number is almost certainly higher. Supporting Israel is taboo in the Arab world, and that goes double when Israel is at war. This is not the sort of thing most Arabs are comfortable admitting to strangers, yet one-fourth of Saudis just did.

(Intriguingly, a clear majority of Saudis interviewed in the same survey think their own terrorism and religious extremism is more troubling than either Iran or Israel. There may be hope, at least in the long run, for that region yet.)

Iran’s rulers constantly threaten Israel with violence and even destruction because they know the Arabs are against them. They need to change the subject to something they all can agree on. Ever since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in 1979 and voided Iran’s treaty with Israel, regime leaders have believed they’ll meet less resistance while amassing power for themselves in the region by saying, Hey, we’re not after you, we’re after the Jews.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Threatening Israel Isn’t Enough Anymore

Love of the Land: Some Common Sense in Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Some Common Sense in Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Daniel Pipes
danielpipes.org
23 December 09

Invited recently by the newly formed Pechter Middle East Polls to ask three questions of 1,000 representative Egyptians and 1,000 urban Saudis, the Middle East Forum focused on Iran and Israel, the countries that most polarize the region. The results are illuminating.

(Technical note: Respondents were interviewed face to face in Arabic, in their own homes using a structured questionnaire during November by a credible, private, local commercial company with a solid track record. The margin of error is ±3 percent.)

Iran: In today's Middle Eastern cold war, the Islamic Republic of Iran heads the revolutionary bloc, while the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt head the opposing status-quo bloc. How anxious are the Saudi and Egyptian populations of the Iranian nuclear weapons buildup? Pechter Polls asked two questions for MEF: "Assuming the Iranian government continues its nuclear enrichment program, would you support an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?" and "How about an American strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities?"

In Egypt, 17 percent support an Israeli strike and 25 percent an American one. In Saudi Arabia, the figures, respectively, are 25 and 35 percent. Backing for an Israeli strike is surprisingly strong, for an American one, roughly as I expected. These numbers confirm a just-completed review of polling data by David Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who found "strikingly high levels of support—especially among Saudis—for tough action against Iran's nuclear program."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Some Common Sense in Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Love of the Land: The Saudis Take a Stroll on J Street

The Saudis Take a Stroll on J Street

There are some very close ties between Saudi Arabia, the Arab American Institute, and J Street.

Lenny Ben-David
PajamaMedia.com
23 December 09

Talk about a tough sale. Imagine being Saudi Arabia’s public relations firm in the United States in the months after the 9/11 attacks, which were perpetrated by 19 terrorists, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals. Shilling for a tarnished Saudi Arabia was the daunting task that faced Qorvis, a Washington-based PR company. The $14 million contract surely compensated.

In their 2002 contract, Qorvis promised to “draft and/or distribute talking points, press releases, fact sheets, and op-ed pieces in order to promote the [Saudi] Kingdom, its commitment to the war against terrorism, peace in the Middle East, and other issues pertinent to the Kingdom.”

Soon thereafter, a new organization appeared on the American scene, the “Alliance of Peace and Justice in the Middle East.” In April 2002, the organization ran radio spots on dozens of stations across the U.S. extolling the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by then-Crown Prince Abdullah and attacking Israel’s settlements.

According to one ad: “The [Saudis’] fair plan [would] end the senseless violence in the Mideast.” The plan involved Israel’s “withdrawal from the Palestinian land it has unjustly occupied for years. … There will be no more midnight raids and random searches, no more violence.” “Start the peace — end the occupation” is the phrase that ends the ads. It is followed by the words “paid for by the Alliance of Peace and Justice.”

Who was behind the alliance? One American Jewish activist tracked them back to a Virginia address, which just happened to be the offices of Qorvis.

Eight months later, in documents submitted to the U.S. Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Office (FARA), Qorvis began to fess up. They listed receipt of $679,000 from the Alliance of Peace and Justice for “payment for radio, television, and print ads.”

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The Saudis Take a Stroll on J Street

RubinReports: The Saudi Regime is Flooded with Problems, Some of which It Can’t buy off

The Saudi Regime is Flooded with Problems, Some of which It Can’t buy off

[Please subscribe. Save time, get a single daily digest of Rubin Reports' articles]

By Barry Rubin

Four years ago, in my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, I wrote about an American-educated Saudi building contractor named Hussein Shobokshi. He had written an article warning that the infrastructure of Saudi cities was so poorly designed that there was tremendous danger of a massive flood which would cause great destruction.

Why? Because corrupt government officials had done a bad job but they went unpunished and their bad work unrepaired because of their royal family connections.

In another August 2003 article in a Saudi newspaper, Shobokshi related a bedtime story he told his seven-year-old daughter about his dream that Saudi Arabia would one day be a country where she would be able to drive and be a lawyer; where there are elections and human rights’ conferences, female cabinet ministers, and mosques hold educational classes that discuss religion freely. In response, he received some praise but more death threats.

The government did respond to his complaints and criticisms. Despite the fact that he was a major stockholder of the newspaper, his column was permanently cancelled.

And now, guess what? Under similar conditions there was a flood in the city of Jiddah. The incomplete death toll now stands at 113.

The Saudi government has responded by forming a committee, which formed sub-committees, which planned their agenda, which will some day supposedly lead to the issuing of recommendations.

One of the sycophantic Saudi newspapers put it this way:

“The King’s historic order to determine the real cause of the disaster and who or what was responsible for it has been widely welcomed by the public, Prince Khaled said. “It was a great gesture from the King that has resulted in widespread public appreciation and positive feelings,” he said.

With years of praise for allegedly making reforms by various Western researchers, British refusal to investigate Saudi bribes to UK defense contractors and the near-appointment of an American who was virtually on the Saudi payroll to manage U.S. Middle East intelligence, the Saudi regime continue to remain rather under-criticized. The previous president of the United States was also quite friendly toward Saudi regime interests. study undertaken in part by a Georgetown University research center which received funding from Saudi royals has recently declared the Saudi king to be the world's most important Muslim.



The reason, of course, is that Saudi money buys a lot of friends and a great deal of silence.

The regime could have listened to Shobokshi and other Saudi liberals years ago and prevented the need to hold these investigations into why a flood did so much damage. It certainly has the money to fix anything wrong within the kingdom.

Ironically, though, the Saudis have now run up against a force that cannot be bought off so easily: Iran. They are very nervous about the likelihood that the United States won’t protect them against Tehran, as well as its Syrian ally. They are going to have to cut their own deal in that direction.

This is, then, the worst of both worlds: the Saudis get away with all too much domestic corruption and repression, coupled with spreading corruption and Islamism abroad. Yet when they really do deserve real Western support against a genuine threat from something worse, they can’t get it.

Irony roosts in the Middle East

RubinReports: The Saudi Regime is Flooded with Problems, Some of which It Can’t buy off

Hillary Clinton's complicity with the Saudi Royal Family

Hillary Clinton's complicity with the Saudi Royal Family

The Saudi Secrets

October 6, 2009 5:30 AM by David Keyes
Director, Cyberdissidents.org and Coordinator,
Democracy Programs at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies

Secretary of State Clinton recently unreservedly praised one of the world's most ruthless tyrants, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. “I want to salute King Abdullah for his leadership on key regional and global challenges" Clinton said on Saudi National day and following the inauguration of the Kingdom's first co-ed college. "King Abdullah has extended the hand of friendship to people of other faiths. He has provided leadership in developing and strengthening the Kingdom’s institutions, working to diversify the economy, support knowledge-based education, and expand opportunity for women. And he has established a powerful dialogue that seeks to promote the principles of moderation, tolerance, and mutual respect — core values that we all share."Where to begin?

One has to wonder if Clinton would laud slave owners if they suddenly provided co-ed housing for their slaves, or if she would heartily congratulate mass murderers if they slowed the pace of their killing sprees. Perhaps Clinton should remember that if it were up to Abdullah, she would be forced to wear a burka and would be banned from driving, travelling and attending Church.

I think I've figured out the Saudi secret: It is to set expectations so embarrassingly low that even the slightest ease in the Kingdom's draconian laws brings about near apoplectic glee from the West. That, and they sit atop the world's largest oil reserves. Lest you think that such comparisons are far-fetched, recall that Saudi Arabia is a ruthless dictatorship where basic freedoms are crushed and dissidents live in fear. It is a nation which bans women from traveling without a man's permission, and detains bloggers such as Hamoud Saleh Al-Amri, Fouad Al-Farhan and Roshdi Algadir who dare to speak out. It is a regime which bans the building of churches and synagogues and whose "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" barred the walking of pet cats and dogs in public. Women are forced to wear burkas and are banned from driving.It takes a particularly noxious mixture of ignorance, appeasement and spinelessness for the most powerful diplomat in the Western world to kiss up to a medieval tyrant. Here's an idea: How about the Unites States condition all future Saudi arms sales on the right of women to vote and drive? And that a giant Church, and even bigger synagogue, be built so that for the first time in history Saudi Arabians can enjoy a modicum of religious liberty? Ah, but then our Saudi ally might get offended, and we certainly don't want that…. Rather than praise the unelected and corrupt dictator who sits atop this odious theocracy, let us point to Saudi Arabia as the exact opposite of what is desired in this world. Yes, the Saudis will get mad. And why shouldn't they? Freedom is a direct affront to the imposition and xenophobia that lies at the heart of their regime. But in a test of wills, I'll take liberty over what is offered there any day.Who’s with me?David Keyes is the Director of Cyberdissidents.org and the Coordinator for Democracy Programs at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.. david@cyberdissidents.org

Originally posted by B'NAI ELIM (Sons of the Mighty)

Israel Matzav: Congress angry over Saudi boycott

Congress angry over Saudi boycott

Last Monday, I reported that instances of the Saudis asking companies to boycott Israel had risen 76% since the Saudis agreed not to boycott Israel as a condition to their admission to the World Trade Organization in 2005. That report has apparently angered members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Democrat Howard Berman of California, Chairman of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Post from Washington that he had read the report in Monday's paper.

"This is a very disturbing report," Berman said, "particularly in light of the fact that US officials assured us four years ago that Saudi Arabia would abandon the boycott as the condition for its entry into the World Trade Organization."

Berman declared that he would take action on the issue.

"I intend to pursue this matter with the administration," he said.

Across the aisle, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, who chairs the House Republican Conference, also criticized Riyadh for its duplicity.

"Saudi Arabia's disregard of its 2005 pledge to end the boycott against Israel is unacceptable," Pence told the Post.

"Congress and the administration must hold Saudi Arabia accountable. The United States cannot stand by and continue to witness this mistreatment towards the peace-loving people of Israel," he said.

"Ending the Arab League boycott and establishing trade relationships with Israel would help foster much needed peace in the region," Pence added.

Hey folks - time to stop fooling ourselves. The Saudis aren't going to accept Israel's 'right to exist' as a Jewish state in this region - not now and not ever. And neither will any of the other Arab - Muslim countries. The existence of the 'Palestinians' is a sham that's meant to divert attention from the fact that Israel liberated Judea and Samaria (and Gaza and Sinai and the Golan Heights) in a defensive war, and therefore has an absolute right to those lands under international law.

I'd love to see Saudi Arabia kicked out of the WTO, but it will never happen.

Israel Matzav: Congress angry over Saudi boycott

Israel Matzav: And you thought this could only happen in Saudi Arabia

And you thought this could only happen in Saudi Arabia

Several years ago, I recall reading a Wall Street Journal story about American women who married Saudi men who were living in the United States (often as students) who went with them on a visit to Saudi Arabia and then were not allowed to leave. The US embassy in Saudi Arabia did nothing for these women - including not allowing them to take refuge in the embassy itself when the husbands became abusive.

Well, it doesn't just happen in Saudi Arabia. On Wednesday morning, ten former IDF combat soldiers rescued an American woman and her two and a half year-old son from an Arab village in the Tulkarm area (in Samaria). The woman and her son had been held in the area by her husband and his family for three years (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).

The man's first wife and four children from the first marriage also live in the house.

The woman's husband allegedly hit her, prevented her from leaving the house and threatened that if she left, she would never see their son again. He also threatened that if she left the home, she would be apprehended by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).

After efforts to bring about the woman's release by contacting Palestinian Authority officials failed, the woman's parents contacted a Jewish American man who had served in a combat unit in the IDF. He contacted friends in Israel who planned the rescue operation for several weeks, gathering intelligence on the family's routine, and carrying it out successfully on Monday, according to Army Radio.

The woman and her son were transferred to the US consulate in Jerusalem and left the country on an airliner to Ohio on Tuesday.

Curiously, although this was apparently coordinated with the US consulate (the 'embassy' to the Palestinian Authority), it was not coordinated with the IDF.

Although the family had promised a financial reward, the former soldiers refused to take the money.

You may recall that I blogged a similar story about an Israeli woman who was trapped in Gaza by her husband's family after the husband's death during Operation Cast Lead. She's pictured with three of her kids at the top of this post.

If you know someone who is trapped among the 'Palestinians' in the disputed territories, call the IDF or Yad L'Achim.

UPDATE 3:20 PM

My mistake. The former soldiers are going to be paid for their work. What they were quoted as saying in the Post article was that they didn't do it for the money.

Israel Matzav: And you thought this could only happen in Saudi Arabia

Israel Matzav: The delusional Saudis

The delusional Saudis

Over the weekend, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal published an op-ed in the New York Times. The op-ed is laced with inaccuracies. It insists that Israel must give the Arabs all of the land it liberated in the defensive 1967 war and then the Saudis will deign to consider normalization of some sort.

It must therefore refuse to engage Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality.

Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, during which Israel occupied those territories as well as East Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution stating that, in order to form “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” Israel must withdraw from these newly occupied lands. The Fourth Geneva Convention similarly notes “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

No, that's not what the United Nations said and it's not the correct interpretation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Before turning to the specific issue of the settlements, it is instructive to recall that Israel's entry into the West Bank, in particular, created a number of legal dilemmas that would ultimately impinge on how the legal question of settlements was examined. Israel entered the West Bank in a war of self-defense, so that the UN Security Council did not call on Israel to withdraw from all the territory that it captured, when it adopted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in November 1967. The previous occupant in the West Bank from 1949 to 1967 had been the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose sovereignty in the territory the entire international community refused to recognize - except for Britain and Pakistan. Prior to 1949, the governing document for legal rights in the West Bank was the 1922 Palestine Mandate, which gave international recognition to Jewish legal rights.

U.S. officials were cognizant of these considerations. Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School who was also Undersecretary of State in the Johnson years, would write years later that "Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank." He argued that Israel's claims to the territory were "at least as good as those of Jordan." Prof. Stephen Schwebel, who would become the State Department legal advisor and subsequently the President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, went a step further when he wrote in 1970 that "Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt." On July 29, 1977, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance stated that "it is an open question as to who has legal right to the West Bank."

Faisal goes on:

Now, Israeli leaders hint that they are willing to return portions of these occupied territories to Arab control, but only if they are granted military and economic concessions first. For the Arabs to accept such a proposal would only encourage similar outrages in the future by rewarding military conquest.

Talk about turning the table upside down....

Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter, which called for the destruction of Israel, as evidence of Palestine’s attitude toward a two-state solution, without considering the illegalities of Israel’s own occupation. Israel has never presented any comprehensive formulation of a peace plan. Saudi Arabia, to the contrary, has done so twice: the Fahd peace plan of 1982 and the Abdullah peace initiative of 2002. Both were endorsed by the Arab world, and both were ignored by Israel.

The Hamas charter, which calls for Israel's destruction, remains a legally enforceable document. So does the Fatah charter, which also calls for Israel's destruction. Israel cannot propose any 'peace plan' because anything less than a total surrender would just be pocketed by the Arabs and become the platform for the next negotiations. As for the Saudi 'proposals,' anything that calls for the 'return' of all the 'Palestinian refugees' to Israel is a non-starter.

The rest of the op-ed probably sets a world record for pomposity. But given that the President of the United States bows to their king, that's not surprising.

Israel Matzav: The delusional Saudis

RubinReports: Key Saudi Prince Injured in Terror Attack: Shaking Up the Kingdom

Key Saudi Prince Injured in Terror Attack: Shaking Up the Kingdom

By Barry Rubin

Of Saudi Arabia it has been said that a bird doesn’t move without the royal family’s permission. That a suicide bomber was able to get close enough to wound the Saudi Assistant Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef is a very worrisome development that will shake up the kingdom.

This is not just anybody nor even just any Saudi prince but the man whose father leads the regime’s intelligence and counterterrorist operations, and who himself plays an important role in this campaign. The government knew he was a high-priority target and provided the best security possible. The—presumably al-Qaida linked—terrorists knew it also and thus calculated that making such a hit would show their strength and effectiveness.

As a traditional tribal leadership, Saudi royals frequently hold open meetings, secure in their forces’ tight security control. The terrorist was thus able to approach closely, though the prince was not seriously wounded and no one was killed.

But this is a message: the insurgency against the Saudi regime is not dead, despite many arrests and executions. It is also a reminder that Saudi security can be pretty lax, as has been seen in past attacks where seemingly secure areas were penetrated by terrorists.

Read All at :

RubinReports: Key Saudi Prince Injured in Terror Attack: Shaking Up the Kingdom

Israel Matzav: Awesome: 'Our friends the Saudis' to build nuke plant

Awesome: 'Our friends the Saudis' to build nuke plant

Just what we needed: 'Our friends the Saudis' have decided to go nuclear.

The Saudi newspaper Al-Watan reported on Thursday that the Saudi minister of water and electricity, Abdullah al-Hosain, said the kingdom was working on plans for its first nuclear power plant. The US inked civil nuclear power deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year.

Israel had no official response to the Saudi minister's announcement.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Awesome: 'Our friends the Saudis' to build nuke plant

Israel Matzav: Saudis throw cold water on Obama's 'peace plan'

Saudis throw cold water on Obama's 'peace plan'

At a press conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday, Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal threw cold water on President Obama's 'peace plan.'

I would be remiss if I didn’t express our thanks and appreciation to President Obama and to Secretary Clinton for their early and robust focus on trying to bring peace to the Middle East. I expressed to the Secretary our view that a bold and historic step is required to end this conflict and divert the resources of the region from war and destruction to peace and development.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Saudis throw cold water on Obama's 'peace plan'

Israel Matzav: The Saudis work against Obama

The Saudis work against Obama

'Our friends the Saudis' have told President Obumbler that they won't make any 'gestures' toward Israel to get a 'peace process' going. But this time, they have gone even further. They have warned their allies not to make any gestures either. And they have insisted that their allies coordinate with them any statement they make about Israel.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The Saudis work against Obama

Israel Matzav: 'Our friends the Saudis' behind Iraqi terror?

'Our friends the Saudis' behind Iraqi terror?

'Our friends the Saudis' are behind the recent terror attacks in Iraq according to Iraqi sources cited in a report issued by MEMRI. The reason is that Iraq's government is dominated by Shia and the Sunni Saudis won't accept it.

Saudi King 'Abdallah refused to meet with Al-Maliki on the periphery of the March 30, 2009 Doha summit, on the grounds that Saudi Arabia was "not sure that true conciliation has indeed been achieved in Iraq" and that "Al-Maliki has not kept his promise to appease all political forces in Iraq and to involve them [in the political process]." [1] This statement is a manifestation of the conflict between the Saudis and the Shi'ite Iraqi government, with the Saudis having set themselves up as protectors of Iraq's Sunni minority.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 'Our friends the Saudis' behind Iraqi terror?