I guess I'm just not as impressed as you with expressions of the glaringly obvious -- even coming from an "ally's" diplomatic community representative.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 31, 2006 12:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

Umm, Greg: you might want to check out the rest of the WaPo's piece: since it is in the very next graf that the Prince makes (or rather, belabors) the "point" which he sees as the cause of the US' diminished standing: support for Israel.

"We want you to remain friends with Israel," Saudi Ambassador Turki al-Faisal said at a news conference. "But that friendship should be used to push Israel" to relinquish the land the Arabs lost in the 1967 Mideast War and provide the Palestinians with a state they have been denied for more than a half-century, the prince said."

Can't say that Turki is actually wrong per se, in his assessment of America's perception in the region - though hardly "diplomatic" for him to say so - but it is telling (and a bit depressing) that he uses the occasion to flog the same-old-same-old Arab obsession with Israel as an "explanation" for our woes.
So what else is new?

Posted by: Jay C at October 31, 2006 12:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

I have no problem with Prince Turki's sense of diplomacy; he has been around the US-Saudi relationship for so long that if he didn't say something like this publicly it would quickly leak out that he was saying it privately.

As far as his comments on Israel, these simply restate the longstanding Saudi position, which is sharply distinguished from the radical Arab position of which, oddly, the Iranian President has decided to make himself one of the chief spokesman. The problem with the Saudi position, as always, is that it asks so little of the Palestinians, or more precisely of the Palestinians' political leadership.

Granted that the Israeli government is often difficult and even unreasonable, it is faced with an elected Palestinian president who would negotiate but would not be able to exercise authority over the many armed gangs in the West Bank and Gaza, and an elected Hamas government that would negotiate as long as it needn't recognize the state it is negotiating with or commit to recognizing the product of any previous negotiations. Because the Saudis along with other Arab governments are unwilling to concede that this situation would put any Israeli government in an impossible position with its public, they are forced to fall back to the idea that the missing piece of the puzzle is American pressure on Israel to solve the Palestinians' problem for them by granting all the points in dispute -- with Abbas and Arab governments that view the situation as Turki does, that is, not with Hamas.

Understand, it isn't the Saudis' fault that the Mideast has become so intractable. They didn't sponsor the suicide bombings that so inflamed Israeli opinion; they didn't encourage Nasrallah's War last summer; and they are not responsible for the Palestinians' post-Arafat breakup into local armed militias. To the extent the Bush administration has written a blank check to Israel for the expansion of the West Bank settlements that are such a large element in the current impasse, of course, the Saudis are not responsible for that either. The blank check that Prince Turki's government and other Arab states have written to the Palestinian political leaders to keep screwing around and never form a government that could make the kind of peace he calls for here, though, is their responsibility. By continung their long campaign to retain the public appearnace of "solidarity" with the Palestinians -- and to avoid breaking publicly with Arab radicals who hate them anyway -- they reinforce stalemate.

Posted by: Zathras at October 31, 2006 01:45 AM | Permalink to this comment

Turki also said this today (via Stratfor):

"Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, warned Washington on Oct. 30 that dividing Iraq into three ethnic regions would lead to ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence on a mass scale. He also said that U.S. forces should not withdraw from Iraq until the Iraqi government asks them to do so."

Presumably doing either of these things -- permitting the division of Iraq into sections or withdrawing before the government of Iraq requests -- would further diminish American standing in the region. Either that, or Turki does not care about our "standing," which strikes me as more likely.

I would feel worse about the decline in our standing if I thought there had been a single moment since the fall of the Soviet Union when "standing" in the Arab Middle East actually did the United States any good.

Posted by: TigerHawk at October 31, 2006 03:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

I don't entirely agree with your sentiments Zathras... You are right on the money in terms of the failure of the Palestinian leadership to decisively reign in the militants and create conditions for peace...

However I don't always agree with the sentiment that somehow the Palestinians are entirely responsible for this. Like some kind of recalcitrant child once soon learns that both the carrot AND the stick approach is required.

The common thread here is that the Palestinians can only have their land (and lets not forget that we are only talking about lands illegally occupied and settled here) back if they behave like good little boys and girls and agree to conditions put in front of them. Which is a little back to front is it not? After all its wasn't the Palestinians per se who invaded Israel in 1967, but rather their surrounding Arab neighbours. So they are being punished for something that in effect as a "group" they had little control over (although I don't doubt many supported the invasion)

So in effect what you're saying is that until the Palestinians agree to the terms dictated by Israel who holds all the power in this situation then they don't get back what is actually theirs anyway. This isn't really that much of an incentive,and as we've seen in Gaza the Israeli withdrawal was immediately followed by a complete closure of the border, in effect sealing the Gaza strip without any infrastucture or means to actually create a living for themselves- very generous!!

I guess I'm coming from the other tack - although equally prepared to meet in the middle. I DO think the onus is on the Israeli's to genuinely give the Palestinians some incentives to come to the table. Gaza has proven to be something of a hollow concession, and at the end of the day the Israelis are only being asked to give up something that doesn't belong to them anyway.

Sometimes what works well with badly behaved children is to give them some responsbility. They'll either step up or not - but if they don't you've at least given them the opportunity.

Perhaps this is just what the Palestinian leadership needs. They get back land that is rightfully theirs (with numerous UN mandates to support this) and it enables the Israeli's to respond to any aggression with justification - given that they are no longer in occupation, and thus giving them a moral high ground to operate from. I for one would certainly support Israel's right to defend herself vigorously if they've withdrawn to their orginal 1948 boundaries. Of course this presupposes Israel has any intention of doing this - which is in itself questionable.

Another possible result might be that the Palestinian people may well view their leadership in a new light which would potentially weaken Hamas, or draw them into a Political position which would require them to come to the table (whether or not that accept Israel or not as you point out).

I don't think the quite articulates what I'm trying to say well, but I guess in short I don't think its entirely fair to point the finger at the Palestinians leadership (as weak and ineffectual as it is) without accepting that there are broader factors at play, and that the ongoing settlement and occupation of land that doesn't belong to them, places quite a degree of onus also on the Israeli's to step up to the plate - in my humble opinion. However I welcome your comments to the contrary if I've missed anything.

Posted by: Aran Brown at October 31, 2006 05:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

My comment above was directed primarily at the position the Saudi and other Arab governments have chosen to take toward the Palestintian political leadership. I had not intended it as a statement as to what America, or Israel or Europe, ought to do to get the peace process moving again.

I do have some thoughts on that, but am pressed for time at the moment and will save them for later. For the time being I'd say only that from my point of view it does not matter who was legally right either in 1948 or 1967; I do not care who ends up governing which parts of the West Bank; and I am pretty sure we won't see movement toward peace in this part of the Middle East if peace is something we want more than the people who live there do.

Posted by: Zathras at October 31, 2006 05:35 AM | Permalink to this comment

Zarthras,

I'm looking forward to your further comments, since I thought the ones above were throughtful and insightful. It seems to me that this is an especially unpropitious time to expect any kind of Israeli/Palestinian settlement. Any negotiation has to be over land for peace. If the Palestinians can't field a negotiating team or leadership able to deliver peace, how can anyone reasonably expect the Israelis to negotiate away land? What can they expect to get for it? The moral high ground?

Not only do we have that obstacle; we have the Israeli's poor military showing against Hezbollah. That, together with the Iranian nuclear and missile advances, make the Israelis feel less secure than they have since 1973. Negotiating peace with an enemy that declares their intention to kill you is next to impossible. Doing so with an enemy that not only wants to kill you, but looks like maybe it can, is flatly impossible.

Finally, I'm not sure if this is a factor, but I've been wondering about this analogy: When the PRC took over Hong Kong, Beijing (for the most part) kept to it's promise of maintaining the city's international character. They didn't get rid of civil rights, freedom of speech, etcetera, at least not quickly or overtly. Why? because the real prize is Taiwan, and they wanted to hold out a model the Taiwanese might conceivably, ultimately, accept. Now a key stumbling block to Israeli/Palestinian peace is the status of Jerusalem. No issue is more charged than that, and the Palestinian proposals revolve around making it an international city, a cosmopolitan pluralistic enclave. Bringing the Israelis to accept something like that has also been next to impossible. With the current example of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, it seems to me that it's become flatly impossible.

Posted by: matt at October 31, 2006 09:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

There is no reason at all for israelis to make peace. They benefit far more from the status quo than they could from any peace.

There isn't enough water in israel/palestine for the israelis, much less for israelis + palesitinians. With no agreement israelis get as much of the water as they want to take. With a peace tehy'd have to negotiate about water.

Similarly for land. With no agreement the israelis can take whatever they want. With peace they'd have to negotiate.

If there was peace, if israel did not have the appearance of being threatened, they wouldn't get nearly so much support from the USA or from the world jewish community. They'd be expected to make a profit on their own.

Then there are the risks. If israel agreed to a palestine with open borders, the palestinians could openly buy advanced weapons. Then the next time israel chose to invade they would take casualties. Why agree to let palestinians have defensive weapons, when the border can be controlled?

Why give up occupying palestine when they might have to conquer and occupy palestine all over again? Even worse, what if the peace lasted for 20 years and palestinians had the chance to educate a generation of engineers and such? It would all be much much harder. Better to keep the palestinians uneducated for that 20 years, so they won't become a threat.

If palestine became an independent nation with independent communications, they could make a much better effort at telling the world what happened during the occupation. Then when israel inavded again they'd be able to tell the world how that was going, until they were silenced. Better to keep them mostly silenced all along. Journalists who're sympathetic to palestinians can be thrown out of israel/palestine, and while a lot of information does get out, it's nothing like what could get out if israel didn't control the communications. Why should they allow that trouble for themselves?

"Peace" has very little value for israel. They could avoid a few ineffective attacks. They could get good will from countries they don't need good will from. That's about it. And what they'd lose, and what they'd risk,. can't begin to balance that. It's a pleasant thought for israeli voters, just as having a balanced budget and peaceful relations with the entire world are pleasant thoughts for americans. But you can't expect them to do anything substantive toward allowing peace.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 31, 2006 12:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks Joseph, I respect your opinions and ability to articulate them- far better than I. I supposed looking at this with fresh eyes the whole issue is one that has huge levels of intractability on both sides, and as has been proven time and time again,as you so rightly point out - without the will for peace on both sides then there is no chance for it.

Perhaps being the critic of Bush's foreign policy that I am I too need to learn the utopian, big bang ideals don't get very far in the dirty sullen reality!

Posted by: Aran Brown at October 31, 2006 09:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

Prince Turki, who along with his aide Mr. Adeeb, talent scouted the likes of Bin
Laden, for the Afghan operations, whose family's foundations, madrassas,
charities et al; stoke the jihad from San Francisco to Tashkent, who fund
Hamas, PIJ, et al . Whose emissaries include the Al Ghamdi, Al Quahtani,
Al Utaibi clans, who compose the heart of the foreign insurgency. Who drive
the world to the brink of depression with their extortionate use of the oil
weapons. Do we really care what he thinks.

Posted by: narciso at November 1, 2006 04:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

Shortly before V-E Day, it was no secret that U.S. standing in Germany was at an all-time low.

-- Prince Turki al-Faisal's comment is meaningless without context and almost meaningless with context. As pointed out by narisc, above, Saudi Arabia is hardly our friend, and for all practical purposes, is our enemy. Plus, we never know when any such comment is for real or is just for the home audience or just for the US audience.

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with."- Nicolo Machiavelli

The US's problem isn't that it isn't loved enough by the Middle East (or Europe or anyone else), it is that it is not feared enough. Is Prince Turki al-Faisal saying that the love of the US is at an all time low or that the fear of the US is at an all time low? Which one gets you "standing" in the Mideast? I think it's pretty clear that fear gets you standing in the Mideast. Thereore, reality behind Prince Turki al-Faisal's message is that we should much more ruthless in the Mideast despite the efforts of some to construe his statement as proof that the Mideast loved us until Bush came along and now they all hate us.

Posted by: DCM at November 2, 2006 08:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well, there is always the option of attempting to fight the entire world at once, and using our forces to cow and bully everyone, and try to frighten all into doing what we want, or when that fails, trying to bribe them. After all, we can always borrow another trillion dollars. This seems to be the thinking of the people advising Bush -- borrow more money, spread it around under the table to your friends for them to ship it off to the Carribbean -- after all, it's not your money. The US treasury is there for the looting now, so loot while you can...

Posted by: Harvey Woodson at November 3, 2006 02:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

Shortly before V-E Day, it was no secret that U.S. standing in Germany was at an all-time low.

This is a silly side issue, but I tend to doubt your claim. The germans had the soviet army facing them in the east. US standing has probably seldom been higher there.

Plus, we never know when any such comment is for real or is just for the home audience or just for the US audience.

There's no reason to suppose any diplomat's comment is "for real". But you can guess whether it's for the home audience or for the US audience by noting where he was when he said it and who he said it to. Can we get that from the article? Yes. he said it in Washington DC, to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, an american group, and the transcripts were given to western reporters. I think that tells us who the audience was.

You quote Machiavelli, but note that he was talking about how a king should manage his country. Note too that Machiavelli got his reputation for being cynical, and somehow people have assumed that he must have been right on things. But there's no evidence. Recent kings who were feared have been overthrown far more often than kings who were loved. Hungary, the philippines, you name it. Kings who're loved might get overthrown by a military junta but those who're feared can get overthrown by, well, practically anybody.

What would you suggest we do to becomie more feared in the middle east? Should we threaten to nuke somebody? Should we actually nuke somebody? Can you think of something else we could do to be more feared?

Posted by: J Thomas at November 3, 2006 04:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

Best way to think of the various Arab kingdoms is to think of them as larger versions of the Mafia. Whether he is called President or King, just about every Arab ruler plans for his son to suceed him. Even in Egypt Hosni Mubarak plans to have his son Gamal suceed him as Pharoah, ah execuse President, just as the chinless wonder suceeded his father, Don Hafez as Hereditary President of Syria. Machivelli is a good study guide to how these rulers behave, although you should ignore Machivelli's sentimental side. If you do not have time for Machivelli, just watch Godfather I & II. Arab rulers are just like Mafia Dons except they have more firepower & have seats in the UN.

Posted by: David All at November 4, 2006 12:30 AM | Permalink to this comment