In very rare public meet, Israeli, Saudi officials name Iran as common foe

[shira]

An extremely unusual public meeting of high-ranking Israeli and Saudi officials took place in Washington on Thursday, when the incoming director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry shared a stage — and shook hands — with a retired Saudi general who is a former top adviser to the Saudi government.

In their back-to-back addresses to the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations think tank, Dore Gold and Anwar Eshki both espoused Israeli-Saudi peace and identified Iran as the chief threat to regional stability.

Eshki spoke at length of Iran’s hostile and aggressive actions in the region and signaled that peace with Israel, based on the Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative, was a top priority. He also spoke of the need for a joint Arab military force to increase regional stability....

...While Gold and Eshki stressed that they were not speaking as official representatives of their nations, but rather as foreign policy experts, they expressed hope that their states could find common ground in the face of regional challenges. “Our standing today on this stage does not mean we have resolved all the differences that our countries have shared over the years,” Gold said, according to Bloomberg News. “But our hope is we will be able to address them fully in the years ahead.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-rare-meet-israeli-saudi-officials-name-iran-as-common-foe/

[shira]

1. cont'd...

...While stopping short of fully endorsing the Arab Peace Initiative, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that he welcomed the general idea behind it — a regional agreement between Israel and the moderate Arab states.

The Arab Peace Initiative, originally proposed by Saudi Arabia in 2002, has many problematic aspects to it, the prime minister said, such as its call for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and the return of Palestinians refuges to Israel. “There are positive aspects and negative aspects to it,” he told Israeli diplomatic correspondents at a rare on-record briefing. “This initiative is 13 years old, and the situation in the Middle East has changed since it was first proposed. But the general idea — to try and reach understandings with leading Arab countries — is a good idea.”

In the framework proposed by the initiative, all Arab and Islamic states would establish normal diplomatic relations with Israel after the successful conclusion of the peace process with the Palestinians. The Israeli government has never fully endorsed the plan. But Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that given Iran’s nuclear and regional aspirations, the moderate Arab states and Israel have a common enemy and grounds for increased cooperation.

Meanwhile, a new telephone poll conducted by an Israeli college among citizens of Saudi Arabia concluded that the Saudi public is far more concerned about the threats of Iran and the Islamic State group than Israel, and that the vast majority of Saudis support the decade-old peace offer to the Jewish state.

The International Disciplinary Center’s poll found that 53 percent of Saudis named Iran as their main adversary, while 22% said it is the Islamic State group and only 18 percent said Israel. The poll, conducted in conjunction with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, surveyed 506 Saudis over the phone and had a margin of error of 5 percentage points....

[Jefferson23]

2. U.S. Omits Iran and Hezbollah From Terror Threat List

http://europe.newsweek.com/iran-and-hezbollah-omitted-us-terror-threat-list-amid-nuclear-talks-314073

[shira]

3. What do u think about Israeli-Saudi cooperation that could lead....

...to agreement on the Saudi Peace Initiative?

In favor or against?

[Jefferson23]

4. They sold out the Palestinians if they keep up support for the land swaps that would

leave Israel with the major settlement blocs.

[shira]

5. As I figured. And you say you want the occupation to end.

Always an excuse to keep it going.



What would anti-Zionists do if Israel agreed to the Saudi Plan? What would they bitch about?

[Jefferson23]

6. A bantustan is not a viable state, the rest of your comments make no sense.

I don't really give a damn what you complain about. I do know what will be left
for the Palestinians if those land swaps go through. It's not rocket science.

[shira]

7. It wouldn't be a bantustan. Try again.

I don't really give a damn what you complain about. I do know what will be left
for the Palestinians if those land swaps go through. It's not rocket science.

Yeah, a continguous Palestinian state with an end to occupation and settlements is such a terrible thing...



Israel's extreme rightwing would probably agree & also be against the Saudi plan.

Hamas would too.

[Jefferson23]

8. Israel's wackos will agree b/c they won't be giving up anything.

You try again...but best with someone who does not follow much on the subject.

[shira]

12. If there's 2 states via the Saudi plan, the Palestinians will get a state....

...on 100% or close to 100% of pre-'67 W.Bank land (with land swaps).

That's not nothing.

So much for the "greater Israel" bullshit.

[Jefferson23]

13. Save your nonsense for someone who does not understand what those major settlement blocs

mean for the Palestinians if they lose them.

[shira]

14. Waiting for Israel to withdraw to exact '67 lines & a full right-of-return....

....knowing that will never, ever happen is advocacy for continued conflict and yet another 50 years of occupation.

No matter what kind of lipstick you try putting on that pig.

[Jefferson23]

15. No one said anything about full right of return, not Abbas. You had to add that bullshit remark to

try and frame Palestinians as unreasonable.

[shira]

17. BDS says it. Their leaders say it. Aren't you for BDS? n/t

[Jefferson23]

21. BDS is a more complicated endeavor for those involved and there are many aspects to it.

For one, some within the movement are ambiguous in their replies about one state as
their hope/goal. Others who support a boycott have made a definitive written expression
of what they are boycotting and what their goal is in doing so.i.e: the Prebyterian Church
divestment, very specific on this matter because they make with a written commitment,
they support Israel as a state. They have divested from Israel on what is accepted to be
violations of international law..and that is as far as they go.

So you have critics who say, if you're for one state, that is your right, just say it.
You have critics who do not support BDS in any obscure manner, but what they do
is target, again, specific Israeli occupation like the church did. Berkeley did the same
thing, for the most part..recognize upfront Israel's right to exist. Critics do not believe
these accomplishments are ones Barghouti can claim as a BDS success. Personally, I
find that disingenuous to some degree due to the semantics of it..but I get their
greater point, groups are being specific, why not Barghouti.

Another thing about BDS critics, who are for divestment with an affirmative no
questions about it, Israel as a state, exists. The BDS movement is growing, more
and more, despite what they complain about so there is that reality too. People
the world over are sick of the occupation and the last assault on Gaza disgusted
even more people than prior wars.

Israel is of course is doing all they can to stop BDS with the help of the US congress.

Omar Barghouti will not accept the invitation Democracy Now extended to talk about
his position and clear up any issue he has been accused of..one of his biggest critics
has been Finkelstein, but there are others.

For me, I look at it this way, BDS is non violent, BDS can be a reason to get Israel
serious about resolving the conflict, but BDS will also take a great deal more time,
time the Palestinians may not have..more settlements, more war too.

When you read how the Arab Initiative changed their stand on the land swaps,
how murmurs within officials of the EU saying similar, how does one ignore that?
That is very dangerous to do.

Why is Barghouti leaving that out of his message? I don't understand that, I just
don't. One does not have to choose one way to advocate for their rights, so I
can understand both sides of the complaints..to a degree.

Any group divesting from Israel due to their violations of international law
in the OPT is best stating their goal outright...whatever that may be.

[King_David]

19. Well eventually it will be the only way a 2 State will occur

So will need face reality sometime ( who knows how long it will take) because the status Quo is not an option.

Reality is land swaps will have to occur , best case scenario is Geneva Accord.

I'm not talking what's just , but what everyone knows will eventually happen.

Just like RoR.... Everyone knows it's a non starter and just will not happen.

[Jefferson23]

20. You can call a bantustan a state, but that won't mean in reality it will be one.

Right of return, in full, was rejected by Abbas some time ago.

[azurnoir]

9. so in your mind would this Palestinian State have international border have freedom in its airspace?

or would it simply be an island in Greater Israel?

[shira]

16. We'll see what the Saudis & Israelis do. It'd be great to see them sit down.....

Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

....in order to pursue 2-states, an end to the conflict, & normalization b/w Israel and the Arab world.

Don't you agree?

[azurnoir]

18. Um you speak as though this were fact when at present it is only fantasy BTW it would not be KSA

it would be the Arab League and Israel has already rejected the revamped Arab Peace Plan out of hand

[sabbat hunter]

10. while in that report

they were not listed, both Hezbollah and Iran are on the official US terrorist countries list.

[Jefferson23]

11. You can see how politicized it is that way and how the list is used when convenient.

One day perhaps they'll retire that word, altogether. Bush pretty much destroyed its meaning
and use.