REALITY CHECK ON SAUDI-ISRAEL NORMALISATION ....

 

Dr. James J. Zogby ©

President

Arab American Institute

 

There has been a great deal of commentary about a possible US-engineered Saudi-Israel normalization agreement: what it would actually do; whom it might benefit; and, most importantly, whether any such arrangement is even possible given current political realities in the US and Israel. A Saudi-Israel agreement would, no doubt, be consequential, but to introduce a touch of reality, let’s look at some of the exaggerated claims that have been made.  

 This will be end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

 It most decidedly will not. Since the convening of the Madrid Peace Conference and culminating with unanimous Arab League endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative, Arabs have made it clear that the conflict is not existential. The central issue of concern has always been Palestinian rights.  

 Even in countries that have made peace with Israel, public opinion indicates that normalization is desirable and that their support rests on the belief that engagement with Israel may give their governments more leverage to press for an end to violence and for Palestinian rights. Despite regional weariness with this conflict, Arab leaders and their publics still react with outrage when Israel commits new atrocities or violates Muslim rights in Jerusalem.  

 This will change the map of the Middle East. 

 The map of the Middle East has already changed. For all intents and purposes, the once powerful military-led “Republics” of the Levantine and North Africa have lost their dominance in the Arab world, with leadership shifting southward to the Arab Gulf states.  

 Saudi Arabia and UAE, for example, are playing transnational roles across the region as well as with global powers. No longer allowing their policies to be solely directed by the US, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are deepening economic ties with China, remaining neutral on Ukraine, and reopening diplomatic ties with Iran. In pursuit of their ambitious economic development and societal goals, both Gulf powers are seeking regional stability and calm. This is how they are working to change the map of the Middle East.  

 Israel and the US apparently want to turn back the clock from this changing Middle East with the goal of offsetting China’s growing role by swinging Saudi Arabia and the UAE back into an exclusive US orbit and creating a united front to challenge Iran.   

 This is a disaster for the Palestinians.  

 A Saudi-Israel normalization would have no consequential impact on the plight of the Palestinians. In reality, Arab states have limited leverage over Israeli behavior. Agreements Israel made in the lead-up to the Madrid Conference made no difference, neither did the Oslo Accords, the Arab Peace Initiative, or the Abrahamic Accords. Israel continues to gobble up Palestinian land, build new settlements, and brutally violate Palestinian rights. The only address that matters in changing Israeli behavior is in Washington. If the US really wanted to make Arab-Israeli peace a reality, it would use its diplomatic and political capital to do so.  

 If Saudi Arabia holds out for terms that include a real end to the oppressive occupation and if the US is intent on pushing this process forward, the entire effort might have a positive impact on the Palestinian future. If, however, the normalization process moves forward without anything positive for Palestinians, it wouldn’t be a disaster—it would be same old, same old.  

 This spells the end of the two-state solution. 

 Normalization would not spell the end of the two-state solution because that ship has already sailed. There is no conceivable government that can be formed in Israel, now or in the foreseeable future, that would allow for anything close to the minimum requirements of an independent, sovereign, viable Palestinian state.  

 At this point, the calls for a Palestinian “state” come from those who refuse to recognize the realities created by Israel’s massive settlement and Jewish-only infrastructure that have made real Palestinian independence and sovereignty impossible. Refusing to accept this and falling back on the mantra of “support for the two-state solution” may make them feel good, but it’s based less on reality and more on wish-fulfillment and the desire for absolution.  

 With Palestinian Arabs comprising slightly more than one-half of the population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, with Palestinians increasingly integrated into the Israeli economy, with Israeli settlements, infrastructure, “security zones,” checkpoints, and with Israeli Apartheid policies in place, we are in for a long hard slog forward toward creating a unitary democratic state with equal rights for all.  

 This will give Biden a much-needed victory before the 2024 elections.  

 While it is doubtful that anything close to the kind of Saudi-Israel normalization being touted in the US and Israeli press can occur, an agreement of any sort will not add five votes to the Biden column in 2024. Democrats and Republicans are deeply polarized, and independent swing voters won’t be moved foreign policy issues—except for Ukraine. Jewish voters will overwhelmingly support the Democratic nominee because of the domestic policies embraced by the GOP. And while Jewish voters may be concerned with the future of Israel, because of their growing unease with the orientation of the current Israeli government, they will not be impressed with any White House celebration that puts Netanyahu center stage.   

 All of this begs the question as to whether or not any form of Saudi-Israel normalization can even happen given current Israeli and American politics. This topic deserves a more complete discussion, but it should suffice to say that as much as Israel may want an agreement, leaders in Netanyahu’s coalition and leaders of the opposition have made it clear that they are unwilling to agree to Saudi Arabia’s insistence to process nuclear materials and their desire to purchase advanced military equipment from the US. Nor are any government or opposition figures in Israel willing to entertain even the most modest concessions regarding Palestinian rights.  

 While Republicans would be loath to provide President Biden with support for any form of agreement that would enhance his election year standing, the President will also find it difficult to find support within his own party for concessions to Saudi Arabia on nuclear or increased sales of military hardware.  

 Bottom line: It’s time to end the hyperventilating over the prospects of a Saudi-Israel normalization agreement. The better approach is for the US to embrace the new realities of a changing Middle East in which Israel is an outlier and for the US to accept its responsibility as the enabler of the Israeli occupation and its Apartheid system. 

A good and factual analysis of the actual Middle-East new arrangement. As always, my many thanks to all. 

The Mind of a famous humorist, Steven Wright.....

 

If you're not familiar with the work of Steven Wright, he's the famous erudite scientist and humorist who once said: "I woke up one morning, and all of my stuff had been stolen and replaced by exact duplicates."  His mind sees things differently than most.

 

 

Here are some of his gems :

 

1 - I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. 

2 - Borrow money from pessimists -- they don't expect it back.

3 - Half the people you know are below average.

4 - 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

5 - 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

6 - A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.

7 - A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

8 - If you want the rainbow, you got to put up with the rain.

9 - All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.

10 - The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

11 - I almost had a psychic girlfriend, But she left me before we met.

12 - OK, so what's the speed of dark?

13 - How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?

14 - If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

15 - Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

16 - When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

17 - Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.

18 - Hard work pays off in the future; laziness pays off now.

19 - I intend to live forever. So far, so good.

20 - If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

21 - Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

22 - What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

23 - My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder."

24 - Why do psychics have to ask you for your name.

25 - If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

26 - A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

27 - Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

28 - The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.

29 - To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

30 - The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

31 - The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.

32 - The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to be on it.

33 - Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.

34 - If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

35 - If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work?

Some intelligent funny remarks from our daily lives, worth looking and pondering into,  As always, my thanks to all for your time.  

NATO'S CAUTION WAS RIGHT .....

 
Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute
 
At the recently concluded NATO summit, while member states displayed continued resolve to provide Ukraine the material and political support needed to counter Russia’s assault, they would not agree to Prime Minister Zelenskyy’s demand to an expedited Ukrainian entry into NATO. Ukraine has been pressing the alliance for admission, but most members demurred. One of the main reasons they deferred was that according to NATO’s charter, Ukrainian membership would, in effect, directly put other NATO members at war with Russia in the defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty. That was seen as a step too far.  

 The decision reached by NATO’s members was that weapons and aid will continue to flow and sanctions on Russia will remain in place, but Ukraine’s admission would be delayed until the end of hostilities. What the NATO members are saying to Zelenskyy is that it’s one thing for us to give you everything you need to repel the invasion of your territory and quite another for us to declare a full scale European continental war with Russia.  

 This hesitation is smart, because it’s doubtful that public opinion in many NATO countries would accept such a move. And it’s even more questionable that even if there were support in some countries for such a war with Russia, that the support would be sustainable over time. 
 It’s useful to recall former US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s doctrinal guidelines to be followed by any democracy before declaring war. Of the items included in the “Powell Doctrine,” two are particularly relevant in this instance. First, Powell insisted, there must be a clear understanding of the costs, consequences, and terms of engagement involved in the war. 

Following this, the doctrine maintains that there must be sufficient and sustainable public support for the effort to be successful, especially if the war is expected to be of long duration. According to the doctrine, if these conditions cannot be met, public support will wane, and the resultant discontent will ensure that objectives cannot be met. (Of course, it should be recalled that in his support for the Iraq war, Powell violated these and other terms of his own “doctrine,” and the disaster that followed only proved the wisdom of his earlier observations.) 

 Having noted this, it’s useful to examine the results of the Zogby Research Services poll in seven European countries (UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, and Turkey) completed in May 2023. This was the fourth in a series of ZRS polls of European attitudes toward the war. This May poll was conducted against a backdrop that included: an intensified push by the US and NATO allies to supply Ukraine with more advanced weaponry in anticipation of Ukraine’s awaited “Spring offensive”; massive Russian bombing of Ukrainian civilian targets: and the destruction of a major dam in Ukraine threatening several communities and causing tens of thousands to flee.  

 What we found was that NATO support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia’s aggression coupled with caution regarding their quick admission were clearly in line with current European public opinion. Our summary findings were: 

 • Most Europeans continue to blame Russia for the war and support breaking ties with and continued sanctions directed against Russia. 

 • At the same time, a substantial majority of respondents in all countries polled make clear that they are “concerned about the cost of this war and believe that a compromise should be found to save lives and resources.” Only one-third or fewer believe that “it is worth the cost of continuing to fight to stop Russian aggression.” 

 • About two-thirds in most countries say their governments should be more independent in global affairs and less aligned with the US. And while Russia has burned its bridges with most Western Europeans, a sizable majority of respondents see the importance of their countries now developing closer ties with China. 

 
 • There is support for admitting Ukraine into NATO in just four of the seven countries, and only respondents in the UK and Poland give tepid support for sending NATO troops. In no country were respondents in support of sending their own forces into the war zone.  

 These attitudes may shift in coming months depending on the success or failure of Ukraine’s offensive and how the internal situation in Russia unfolds in the wake of the failed rebellion by the Wagner Group.

  
 But what’s clear, at this point, is that there is growing unease with fact that this war, which most respondents told us they believed would be over quickly, is continuing with no end in sight. Their major concerns are with increases in the cost of living, the flood of refugees which only serves to aggravate the xenophobic mindset of parties on the right, and the potential for the war to morph into other destabilizing threats that will impact peace on the continent. And, as noted, there is additional unease with their governments appearing to be allowing the US to determine the direction of their foreign policy. 

 In this context, NATO’s caution was right.

 
A good analysis by Dr. Zoghby, worth publishing in our blog for the benefit of our readers, more so under the present situation and its apparent stalemate .      My usual many thanks to all.