Leaders if American Jewish organizations literally fell off
their chairs when they heard what Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told
them in New York on March 27.
If the message was news to them, this also means that they
have not been paying very close attention. This new news had een reported on this
blog, and on the Israeli site Debkafile, many months ago. If they had been
better informed they would not have hurt themselves by falling off their chairs.
In any event, Axios reported yesterday:
In a
closed-door meeting with heads of Jewish organizations in New York on March
27th, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) gave harsh criticism of
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), according to an Israeli
foreign ministry cable sent by a diplomat from the Israeli consulate in New
York, as well three sources — Israeli and American — who were briefed about the
meeting.
The
bottom line of the
crown prince's criticism: Palestinian leadership needs to finally take the
proposals it gets from the U.S. or stop complaining.
According
to my sources, the
Saudi Crown Prince told the Jewish leaders:
"In
the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity
after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about
time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations
table or shut up and stop complaining."
And there’s more:
MBS also made two other points on
the Palestinian issue during the meeting:
1. He made
clear the Palestinian issue was not a top priority for the Saudi government or
Saudi public opinion. MBS said Saudi Arabia "has much more urgent and important
issues to deal with" like confronting Iran's influence in the region.
2. Regardless
of all his criticism of the Palestinian leadership, MBS also made clear that in
order for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to normalize relations with Israel
there will have to be significant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process.
Fair enough, MBS did not
repudiate the Palestinians completely, but he made clear his exasperation with
them.
In the meantime American foreign
policy seems to getting its bearings in the region. Secretary of State Pompeo’s
visit to the region led to a Saudi attack on Houthi rebels—killing some of
their leaders—and an Israeli missile strike on an Iranian base in Syria. One
must conclude that the Tillerson/McMaster team was incompetent… at defending American
interests in the region. This might, for all I know, be the reason why they lost their jobs.
Anyway, the Crown Prince of Saudi
Arabia has labelled the Palestinian Authority a bunch of whiners. Apparently,
Secretary Pompeo holds a similar view. In his recent visit to the region he did
not deign to treat Mahmoud Abbas and Co. as players, if I might use the term.
He did not meet with them and did not even ask for a meeting. With this gesture
he declared the end to the moral equivalence between Israel and the
Palestinians.
If the Palestinians where not
whining, the New York Times was doing their whining for them. What would they
do without the New York Times?
I imagine that this story is
intended as news analysis:
TEL AVIV, Israel — Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo came to Israel Sunday in the midst of the worst
crisis in relations between Israelis and Palestinians in years, but he
did not meet a single Palestinian representative and mentioned them publicly
once.
For decades, American diplomats saw themselves
as brokers between the two sides, and secretaries of state typically met
Palestinian representatives on regional tours like this one. When relations
between the two sides deteriorated, the United States sought to bridge the
divide.
No more.
No one at the State Department called
Palestinian leaders to ask for a get-together with Mr. Pompeo, according to
Palestinian officials. And that may be because the Americans knew the answer
they would have gotten: No.
Note how the authors construct the narrative to make appear that the Palestinians have some face. They were not
shunted to the side. They would never have agreed to be party to any
negotiation.
The Times seems to respect the
Palestinian outrage, outrage that, incidentally, has destroyed the lives of
generations of Palestinians in a futile attempt to destroy Israel:
Infuriated by President Trump’s decision in
December to recognize
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, paving the way for the United States
to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to the contested holy city, Palestinian
leaders have cut off political contacts with the Trump administration. They say
the White House can no longer be considered an honest broker in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“There’s nothing to discuss,” said Xavier Abu
Eid, a senior official of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Negotiations
Affairs Department.
Of course, this is impotent rage.
If, as reported here, Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, along with Crown Prince
of the Emirates, along with the president of Egypt told the Palestinian leader
to make a deal, his rage is merely a cover up for his ignominious
defeat.
Of course, the Times is having
none of it. By their analysis the futile and suicidal protests on the border of
Israel and Gaza has:
… generated global sympathy for the Palestinian
cause….
Which global sympathy would that
be? Does the New York Times newsroom take itself to be the “globe?”
The world is transfixed by the
events on the Korean peninsula. The Arab world, especially the Sunni Arab
world, has tired of Palestinian terrorism, not only because it sees many
advantages to be gained by allying itself with Israel, but also because the
Palestinian authority, a laboratory for Islamist terrorism, has tarnished the
reputations of Arab Muslims around the world.
Pompeo’s task was to unite the
region in the struggle against Iran. He did not go there to assuage the hurt
feelings of the crybaby Palestinians.
2 comments:
As the old saying goes, the Palis have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They have rejected every one.
The NYT: Are you saying the NYT is anti-Israel?? I have the distinct impression that it is.
Point well taken, so I changed the punctuation. I had thought that I could avoid the confusion by not saying: Israeli and Palestinian complaining. In that case, equivalent to the comma placement, the complaining would be shared.
Post a Comment