 |
Ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi of Saudi Arabia, Alon Ben-Meir, and Ambassador Mansour Al-Otaibi of Kuwait
|
They don't feel the pressure. Yes they have security consent, but not now. The reason is they don't pose any threats to Israel. All settlers: they're against concessions. They're not ready to dismantle the settlements. They have hundreds of thousands of them, maybe 150,000. Since 1967 they've been ok and think, 'the situation is stable, the status quo is in our interest, let's go on with it.' -K
Over 350,000 in the West Bank even now. Palestinians are saying they want to continue the negotiations. There's significant authorities in Israel that want peace and to end this conflict. -Alon
I thought Israel was a democracy where government represents the people. I'm glad to be corrected. -SA
They could rely on a coalition government and Netanyahu has been and has been using that as an excuse. If you're a leader and you believe in peace, you should be able to sacrifice your own position to move the process forward. The United States remains indispensable in this process. -Alon
I think that there are actually 3 parties to address. First, the people of Israel need to know truth with regards to these negotiations and they need to hear it from an ally. That is the U.S. Then we will see the degree of commitment that Israelis want peace; Israelis want peace, however, that want is not translating into political will. The second party that needs to be addressed is the poor Israeli lobby in the U.S., which is very important and very influential: they also need to be told the truth. U.S. needs to make its own position known. Third, the world at large and U.S. needs to make its position known. If Israeli population, which is committed to peace, feels they are faced with a situation where their closest ally tells them they're wrong, that will change the situation a bit. President Obama's speech delivered in Israel a year ago. That was the closest to a moment of truth speech that has ever been given to the Israeli public. He received good applause for it from the Israeli youth and I was personally reassured by that. We need to do often. We need to do that often enough and we need to do that forcefully enough. One speech doesn't mean everything. -SA
One speech will not do everything. United States is the only power that can make a difference. We have to move the process forward, because if nothing else happens, it could eventually explode again. -Alon
We have to raise what the Secretary of State is doing because he got the support of the international community including the Arab states. He's very respected, very well respected person. Even Hillary Clinton was orchestrating the peace process. We have to remember what happened with her. She was trying to push the peace process between the two parties. She got a promise from the Israelis that they will stop all settlement activities while the process continued between the two parties, but the Israelis would not give in. She was in trouble. The Israelis rely on support. They have very strong settlements. They're always arguing; they always put the United States for the image of the U.S. Sometimes they change their position. Got an agreement that the settlements should stop and that negotiations would not continue as long as settlement activity was going on. What happened after she left? They got the concessions from the Palestinians. Palestinians accepted the settlement activities go on while they are negotiating with Israel. This is not good for the stake. Now they put the United States in a very difficult position. Shall they continue on their own and pressure both parties? Or they should say something publicly to Israel that we cannot keep brokering the peace process as long as you're not adhering to your commitments. -K
The United States did say the settlements are illegitimate, but when the time came for a resolution as presented to the United Nations Security Council saying exactly the same thing, condemning the settlements and saying they're illegitimate and unhelpful to peace, guess what the result of the vote was? 14 to 1. The United States went against the international consensus that included Britain and France and other European Countries and voted against that. That is sending a double message. I hope this administration will see the same kind of commitment we saw from President Eisenhower in 1956. I hope we can see the type of courage from two figures that are unpopular in the Arab World who certainly have demonstrated their courage: Prime minister Begin and Prime Minister Shahou. Begin removed all the settlements from Sinai and Sharon removed all the settlements from Gaza. I'm not here to seek their praises, but they were courageous enough to take unpopular stands as were previous American Presidents and I hope that this President is willing to be courageous enough to take a stand. -SA
I'm maybe hesitant to criticize this administration, but I'm not a diplomat. I'm much less hopeful. It's going to take a much more forceful approach to change the dynamics and that is not coming from this White House. That's unfortunate. -Alon
The Arab Peace initiative still stands. It has been out there and reinforced. There have been calls for it to be withdrawn Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and many other Arab countries have argued forcefully that it should not. I don't know what more the Arab states can do other than tell Israel we are willing to have completely peaceful relations with you with the entire Arab world with the Islamic world right behind once an amicable and just solution to the Palestinian issue is concluded. Calls for international conferences have been had before. They have continuously been rejected by Israel because Israel feels more secure in the confinement of an American-led Israeli-Palestinian encounter as opposed to an international conference, but we have Annapolis, we've had Madrid we've had many such conferences before and I'm not sure whether one more will make the trick. If you really think so I'll convey it to the mission and see if it works. Israel has always wanted to talk to the Arab states more than the Palestinians. In doing so, they're demonstrating look, we don't have a problem with anybody we're dealing with the Saudis, Egyptians, Moroccans with everybody else, and therefore it's only the Palestinians that are making the dirty noise. I think that that is unhelpful for the Arab states to try to step on the stage instead of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are the people who own the cause and they are the ones who need to negotiate and conclude the deal with Israel. Once that deal is concluded, we will all be there to celebrate and support.
The truth is the Israelis don't fit with the Arab states. They did not answer a very important initiative with the Arab States. Mostly they don't know what's going on in the United Nations. The Israelis and United States they don't actually say anything in the press about resolutions adopted by an overwhelming majority of member states against Israel. Who voted against these resolutions? The United States: in the General Assembly not the Security Council. The United States, Israel, and Palau only. The rest support these resolutions. So they don't fit. In conformity with all the other international resolutions and instruments the Israelis are a very civilized country they are a member of the United Nations and once you're a member there's an article that says you have to respect, implement, and adhere to these resolutions. But the Israelis they don't. They cannot be held accountable because the United States, by using the veto they are protecting them. This is why we don't put them under the spotlight. The second part to why we don't deal with Iran, because we have the same threat, we have the same concern towards the Iranians, but Iran to us is only big neighbor. We have security concerns, but we meet with them we talk to them. At least the international community now almost they reached an agreement with them hopefully the final agreement will be concluded in the next few months, then at least that will address all the concerns of the neighboring states. This is why I can't elaborate on this issue because it's very complicated and we are at least optimistic that the new leadership in Iran hopefully they will deliver on their promises and that they're sincere when they say that they're against building a nuclear weapon because we don't want any nuclear weapon in our area. We know that the Israelis, even though they will not announce it; even here or they they say they have a nuclear weapon but we don't want any nuclear weapon. -K
Perhaps the turmoil in the gulf states is an opportunity for Israel to talk to its neighbors because they share common threats. Iran is under tremendous economic strength and wants some sort of economic credit. They will come back again in two to three years. They will resume the nuclear program. Iran is a significant player in the region. -Alon
First I agree with your assessment about Iran's attitude towards the negotiations. Second I don't agree with your premise that we and Israel have the same concerns about the Iranian nuclear program. Quite frankly I think that Israel has no concerns about the Iranian nuclear program. Not a single Iranian soldier has died on the front with Israel over the past 60 years. Not a single shot has been fired into Israel from Iran. I think the Iranian threat is a smoke scream that Israel keeps raising to avoid dealing with the Palestinian issue and the more the world focuses on Iran the less they can focus on the Palestinians. The threat from the nuclear program from Iran is to us; to both of us; it is to the region not to Israel. It is a threat of nuclear disaster as a result of accident. The nuclear reactors in Bushehr are closer to Kuwait and we are than it is to Tehran. We are the ones who are feeling the heat and feeling the threat. The Israelis are just using it for the time. -SA
Israel is threatening Iran and Iran can proceed to try and build a nuclear weapon. So whether they are fearful or not, what Israel is doing or not does serve the interest of the gulf states. -Alon
When Israel senses a nuclear threat from Iran, it did not announce it will do anything it sent planes and it bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor and came back. When Israel felt the threat from the Syrian reactor or whatever the case they were building, they did not talk about it they sent a plane and they came back and so on. If Israel felt really threatened they would have acted a long time ago. Israel does not feel threatened by the Iranian program; Israel uses the Iranian program to raise fears in order to avoid having to make the concessions. -SA
I'm prepared to subscribe to this notion up to a point, but the truth is there's a huge difference between nuclear attack in Iraq, 2 or 3 in Iraq verses what happened in Syria. What Iran has is more than a dozen facilities: some buried 200 feet in the ground so it's a completely different story. Iran has a much better air defense system. There's not one surgical attack you can get rid of Iran's nuclear facilities so that is a major consideration. Also Israel has to deal with the United States. Attacking Iran is not going to be a surgical attack like in Syria. -Alon
I'm maybe hesitant to criticize this administration, but I'm not a diplomat. I'm much less hopeful. It's going to take a much more forceful approach to change the dynamics and that is not coming from this White House. That's unfortunate. -Alon
The Arab Peace initiative still stands. It has been out there and reinforced. There have been calls for it to be withdrawn Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and many other Arab countries have argued forcefully that it should not. I don't know what more the Arab states can do other than tell Israel we are willing to have completely peaceful relations with you with the entire Arab world with the Islamic world right behind once an amicable and just solution to the Palestinian issue is concluded. Calls for international conferences have been had before. They have continuously been rejected by Israel because Israel feels more secure in the confinement of an American-led Israeli-Palestinian encounter as opposed to an international conference, but we have Annapolis, we've had Madrid we've had many such conferences before and I'm not sure whether one more will make the trick. If you really think so I'll convey it to the mission and see if it works. Israel has always wanted to talk to the Arab states more than the Palestinians. In doing so, they're demonstrating look, we don't have a problem with anybody we're dealing with the Saudis, Egyptians, Moroccans with everybody else, and therefore it's only the Palestinians that are making the dirty noise. I think that that is unhelpful for the Arab states to try to step on the stage instead of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are the people who own the cause and they are the ones who need to negotiate and conclude the deal with Israel. Once that deal is concluded, we will all be there to celebrate and support.
The truth is the Israelis don't fit with the Arab states. They did not answer a very important initiative with the Arab States. Mostly they don't know what's going on in the United Nations. The Israelis and United States they don't actually say anything in the press about resolutions adopted by an overwhelming majority of member states against Israel. Who voted against these resolutions? The United States: in the General Assembly not the Security Council. The United States, Israel, and Palau only. The rest support these resolutions. So they don't fit. In conformity with all the other international resolutions and instruments the Israelis are a very civilized country they are a member of the United Nations and once you're a member there's an article that says you have to respect, implement, and adhere to these resolutions. But the Israelis they don't. They cannot be held accountable because the United States, by using the veto they are protecting them. This is why we don't put them under the spotlight. The second part to why we don't deal with Iran, because we have the same threat, we have the same concern towards the Iranians, but Iran to us is only big neighbor. We have security concerns, but we meet with them we talk to them. At least the international community now almost they reached an agreement with them hopefully the final agreement will be concluded in the next few months, then at least that will address all the concerns of the neighboring states. This is why I can't elaborate on this issue because it's very complicated and we are at least optimistic that the new leadership in Iran hopefully they will deliver on their promises and that they're sincere when they say that they're against building a nuclear weapon because we don't want any nuclear weapon in our area. We know that the Israelis, even though they will not announce it; even here or they they say they have a nuclear weapon but we don't want any nuclear weapon. -K
Perhaps the turmoil in the gulf states is an opportunity for Israel to talk to its neighbors because they share common threats. Iran is under tremendous economic strength and wants some sort of economic credit. They will come back again in two to three years. They will resume the nuclear program. Iran is a significant player in the region. -Alon
First I agree with your assessment about Iran's attitude towards the negotiations. Second I don't agree with your premise that we and Israel have the same concerns about the Iranian nuclear program. Quite frankly I think that Israel has no concerns about the Iranian nuclear program. Not a single Iranian soldier has died on the front with Israel over the past 60 years. Not a single shot has been fired into Israel from Iran. I think the Iranian threat is a smoke scream that Israel keeps raising to avoid dealing with the Palestinian issue and the more the world focuses on Iran the less they can focus on the Palestinians. The threat from the nuclear program from Iran is to us; to both of us; it is to the region not to Israel. It is a threat of nuclear disaster as a result of accident. The nuclear reactors in Bushehr are closer to Kuwait and we are than it is to Tehran. We are the ones who are feeling the heat and feeling the threat. The Israelis are just using it for the time. -SA
Israel is threatening Iran and Iran can proceed to try and build a nuclear weapon. So whether they are fearful or not, what Israel is doing or not does serve the interest of the gulf states. -Alon
When Israel senses a nuclear threat from Iran, it did not announce it will do anything it sent planes and it bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor and came back. When Israel felt the threat from the Syrian reactor or whatever the case they were building, they did not talk about it they sent a plane and they came back and so on. If Israel felt really threatened they would have acted a long time ago. Israel does not feel threatened by the Iranian program; Israel uses the Iranian program to raise fears in order to avoid having to make the concessions. -SA
I'm prepared to subscribe to this notion up to a point, but the truth is there's a huge difference between nuclear attack in Iraq, 2 or 3 in Iraq verses what happened in Syria. What Iran has is more than a dozen facilities: some buried 200 feet in the ground so it's a completely different story. Iran has a much better air defense system. There's not one surgical attack you can get rid of Iran's nuclear facilities so that is a major consideration. Also Israel has to deal with the United States. Attacking Iran is not going to be a surgical attack like in Syria. -Alon
There have been many international conferences about Israeli situation. However, Israel wants this to come from the U.S., which is why these international conferences have failed.
(Please excuse brevity in this Syrian segment):
What's happening in Syria is beyond tragic. Over 35,000 children under the age of 12. Whole world is just watching. Your countries are supporting true rebels in various ways. Obama did nothing in wake of chemical attack.
Assad has not only lost legitimacy, he's lost any credibility to maintain power. His credibility has been shattered irreparably. Just a matter of how many more lives will be lost before the leadership will be rearranged. Who will loose legitimacy is the security council. We entrusted them to maintain peace and security. Why has nothing happened? Because of their indifferences. P5: They used veto 3 times: in the meantime, people die. Regimes are attacking. Resolutions of Security Council are not forceful. They are not assuming their responsibilities. -Kuwait
Long time, this will make them loose legitimacy. We don't want it to. -SA
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the liberation of Kuwait, we owe to the UN. They defend small countries. Security Council acted. We don't want them to loose their legitimacy.
Why is the Arab league not in position to make a call?
If Israel were to attack Syria, I'm not sure lawyers are going to tell us this is permissible. Revolution in Syria is by Syria for Syria. They need more supplies. If international community reacted, you would see a balance of power. Saudi Arabia is supplying weapons: why is it not enough? Whatever weapons we obtain from U.S., we're not allowed to share with other countries. International consensus comes from one place: the UN. You have a nation being disintegrated before our eyes and for the history books... Kuwait is not sending weapons. We held 2 donation conferences: collected $2 billion which went to UN to assist Syrians. U.S. tried to make a resolution in the Security Council; it was blocked by Russia. This has been the worst civil war and genocide since WW2. Syrian people don't need troops; they need logistical support. There are countries who haven't supplied sufficient support. Without U.S. conserted contribution, European countries won't act. When we accuse Russians: they say, you defend the Israelis. Security Council needs to be reformed. One particular crisis is consuming. American leadership should do more.
Arab turmoil rather than Arab spring as it is not limited to spring. War on civilians. What has happened has strengthened our commitment and prosperity. Deputy crown prince to ensure stability in SA.
Someone has to go to Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu would have to declare that he supports Arab peace initiative. Not all Arab world behind Muslim Brotherhood. Obama too. Not all countries are behind the GCC.
We cannot afford to have 65 more years of Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
