The Saudi Peace Initiative of 2002 is no longer relevant in the much-altered Middle East of 2014, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu indicated this week, in a Rosh Hashana interview with The Jerusalem Post that will appear in full in Wednesday’s paper.
“The question is not the Saudi peace initiative,” Netanyahu said, asked if he would accept the proposal now.
“If you read it carefully, you’ll see it was set up in another period, before the rise of Hamas; before Hamas took over Gaza; before ISIS [Islamic State] took over chunks of Syria and Iraq, effectively dismantling those countries; before Iran’s accelerated nuclear program,” he said.
Obviously referring to the Saudi proposal’s call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, including returning the Golan Heights to Syria, Netanyahu noted that this plan was made “before the takeover of Syria by al-Qaida on the Golan Heights.”
Asked whether he thinks the initiative is now irrelevant, he replied, “What is relevant is the fact that there is a new recognition among major countries in the Middle East that Israel is not their mortal enemy, to say the least, but is a potential ally in addressing the common challenges.”
An upbeat Netanyahu showed no outward signs in his Jerusalem office of strain from either the just completed Gaza military operation or the percolating political crisis both within his party and the coalition. He said that whether this “new recognition” among some of Israel’s neighbors could be translated into a “realistic peace proposal” is something worth exploring.
As to whether that “exploration” is actually taking place at this time, Netanyahu said, “I think it is worth exploring, but I cannot tell you that we crossed the divide.”
Netanyahu’s tepid comments about the Saudi initiative stand in stark contrast to comments Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman made in his own interview with the Post last month.
“I think the Saudi initiative is much more relevant today than it was previously,” Liberman said at the time, explaining that this relevance stemmed from a much greater commonality of interests between Israel and the moderate Arab world than there was a decade ago.
Netanyahu also addressed the indirect talks with Hamas over a long-term agreement in Gaza scheduled to start on Tuesday in Cairo. The focus of the discussions, he said, will be to “ensure Israel’s vital security interests, and enable the reconstruction of Gaza and humanitarian assistance under our security requirements.”
As to whether Israel would be willing to give Gaza a seaport if Hamas does not re-arm and the Strip is demilitarized, Netanyahu said, “I’ve said more than once, that when Gaza is demilitarized and abandons the goal of destroying Israel, we are open to considering anything. But that presumes the pacification of Gaza and the espousal of peace.”
Regarding Iran, Islamic State, and the connection between the two, Netanyahu dismissed as “absurd” the idea that the West might somehow have to make concessions to Iran over its nuclear program in order to enlist it in fighting the brutal organization.
Iran, Netanyahu said, is fighting Islamic State because it is in its interest to do so, and because of “their own internal dispute over who will rule the Islamic world that they want to impose.”
“It is the same thing with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and Hezbollah,” he said. “They fight ISIS for the same reason. Because it is in their own interest. Suppose Assad would say, ‘I’ll fight ISIS if you give me chemical weapons back.’ What would you say to that? It’s about as logical as the absurd claim that is now being made by Iran.”
Netanyahu said that Iran is going to fight Islamic State anyhow and should not be awarded with weapons of mass destruction for doing so.
“To arm a militant regime like Iran with nuclear weapons is folly in itself, but to do so in order for them to fight what they are going to fight anyway is a double folly,” the prime minister said.
@ yamit82:
“So?” — so, your going on to bring up the unrelated matter of his performance as PM wasn’t relevant in context, except to one with an axe to grind (and for whom it would, by definition, ALWAYS be. . . . ‘relevant’).
NOTHING precludes you from voicing an opinion in ANY case. (Who’s gonna stop you?) What’s that got to do with the price of carrots?
Told you, my comment wasn’t about BB, the man or politician or statesman. YOU made it about him.
I’m not even part of the making.
By picking up the ball & running off w/ it down the field in a different direction, and pushing the straightforward remark into a dig — about BB personally — YOU had (already) made it an issue.
(Were you afraid that you might?)
“Again”? — get real. Unlike some others around here (including yourself), I’m never argumentative for its OWN sake.
— No reason I would be; argumentation doesn’t do anything for me (if anything, it slows me down).
QTC, in point of fact, this isn’t about argumentation of ANY sort, or for any reason.
Truth is, you just can’t pass up one more opportunity to disparage the PM, just as Cato could never pass up the opportunity to damn Carthage & agitate for its destruction. If the occasion doesn’t arrive tailor-made for cussing out BB
— you’ll tailor it specially so it IS.
Yamit Censorius: ‘Netanyaho delenda est. ‘
It’s tiresome.
dweller Said:
So? I defacto conceded the Soundness of his reasoning. Does not preclude me from voicing my opinion of he whose reasoning you correctly stated as “sound”. Reasoning my be sound but PeePee isn’t.
Don’t see why you are making an issue of this since I don’t owe you anything including conformance. I think you are just being argumentative for it’s own sake again.
@ yamit82:
My comment wasn’t about the PM.
My comment concerned strictly his reasoning as expressed in the JPost interview.
@ dweller:
PeePee NetanYoYO has always talked the talk.
Never has walked the walk. Never!!!!
@ bernard ross:
Thanks Bernie and May you and yours have a Healthy and sweet New Year 5775
@ bernard ross:
Source of Jewish optimism, meaning of Rosh Hashana
Sound reasoning.
@ yamit82:
I loved the dip your apple video, I sent it to friends, Shana Tova to you and your family.
Ted, what happened to article links on the left column top?
yamit82 Said:
I told you from the get go that they would csoon be back together because it was a BS split. I posted these same stories earlier to show how they were already getting back together. I beleive same for sisi and Obama will happen.
as for Saudi and Iran, they have been having these face meetings all through the story. I dont believe it is over yet and I expect ISIS “losses” to be primarily given as gains to non Iran proxies.
to me it is still the model of the west/GCC against Irans proxies until the negotiations complete or it moves on to Iran. do you believe the emergence of ISIS is a sudden event disconnected from other players? It is interesting that it emerged when the other sunni jihadis were going into a stalemate with assad and Irans proxies were winning. What did you think about the baathists and local sunni tribes taking over from IS who withdrew when the US bombed IS? did you notice that IS was mainly in central and northern Iraq but took the roads to the JOrdan and saudi border posts which meant that there was no longer any Iraq gov control over movement between IS and the other sunni states?
@ bernard ross:
bernard ross Said:
Iranian talks with Saudi Arabia may signal thaw in relations
Shia Muslim Iran and conservative Sunni kingdom,
Qataris give ground in Gulf spat
Ian Black: Pro-Islamist Doha is quietly mending fences with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as Isis threat looms. It is not clear how deep the rapprochement will go bitter rivals for influence in the Gulf, meet in New York
You tell me?
yamit82 Said:
I agree, so why would the saudis be in the “alliance” against ISIS when it was reported a month ago that they were arming ISIS. Why would Saudi STOP funding sunni jihadis to help Iran, Assad and hezbullah who are their enemies? Does it make sense to you that saudi is against ISIS who are the sunni jihadis who accomplished what saudi wants?
Did you read my post of the articles that showed that US airstrikes “against ISIS” were creating a new balance, that IS withdrew from positions without fighting and those positions were filled by baathists and local sunni tribes? Isnt that convenient?
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63600475/comment-page-1#comment-63356000139113
yamit82 Said:
yes, I read in more than said and speculate on what it means. I do this for facts I receive as the facts dispensed rarely reflect reality. You might remember that I have been saying the same thing since Pillar of defense and each time made predictions based on my view that understandings existed. remember that when I began there were no statements from BB or liberman that such understandings existed and since then they have been referred to many times by them and written in various news reports. Like I said, it is a speculative model to determine “what is really going on” and in each case it has provided an explantion for otherwise unexplaine events: strange POD cease fire followed by Hamas truce; Jihadis massing in Syria and NOT attacking Israel, reason BB released terrorists for a 9 month peace talk,Turkey Kurd rapprochement,etc. All of these were explained in the context of a regional plan of the west/sunni/GCC agianst Irans proxies.
why do BB and liberman keep reffering to these relationships?
did you notice the peace talks ended and nothing has happened but they are now replaced with another drama?
dont you wonder why ISIS suddenly emerged and all of a sudden ALL the west/GCC alliance is attacking a group which are sunnis and who achieved their goals?
suddenly in a couple of weeks the sunni GCC jihadi funders suddenly are against ISIS?
I dont buy the “explanations” given and therefore when I do not buy those explanations on this and prior events I seek explanatory models which appear to better explain events and then use those models to predict future events to see if they make sense.
BB had no reason to make his statement as to the saudi initiative being passed. You may remember that I have said in the past that I think the GCC has offered BB more than he would get thats on the public table but that it would be delivered or unfolded as if it were a series of individual separate events or agreements.
I do not at all take seriously the current ISIS narrative that suddenly the west is going in on the basis of fighting Irans enemies. The only way I would accept that narrative is if there has already been a covert agreement, like yalta, as to how it will be divided and what the spheres of inflence will be. Like I said, the only negotiation leverage that the west have in Syria and Iraq is due to the presence of ISIS. I do not seee that as a coincidence or being serendipitous.
without a covert Yalta agreement I still see the western/GCC alliance against Iran and its proxies, seeking leverage for a negotiated settlement and if that fails then next I would expect to see the internal destabilization of Iran which I predicted now for a couple of years following Syria, hexbullah and Iraq, which have all occurred. Its not necessarily about winning but about weakening and leverage. Drawing Iran into syria, Iraq and even lebanon means that like hexbullah they are being spread thinner.
when BB decided not to go in he likely knew that it would produce no more than this; that hamas was defeated but they needed time to pretend they weren’t.
bernard ross Said:
I think you are reading into this statement something not said or meant. I see no effect on the ground of any understanding between BB/Israel and Arab States still formally at war with Israel.
Talk yes, innuendo yes, but on the ground NADA, at least to the visible eye. The Saudis are playing their own lets be Buds with Iran and Russia.
Maybe it’s a matter of throwing enough shit on the wall hoping some will stick. ISIS will never be defeated in the manner they are being pursued and even were they to be degraded to impotency like Al-Qaeda they will morph into another Jihadist group possibly even more threatening than ISIS there are several contenders for that honor.
They are attacking in China this week and other places unconnected directly with ISIS.
Iran is the main threat and they are all running from that truth. The Saudis are still subsidizing Terror as is Qatar and the Gulf states. America and Europe still locked in PC denial of what they are facing. Europe already gone but America is racing to catch up. I am not optimistic.
Max was right about one thing who is going to finance another decade of war? The Chinese?
this is what I was saying at the cease fire of Pillars of defense, at the assembling of jihadis in Syria, at the faux pal peace talks, at the release of terrorists by BB and the reason why, at the decisions of protective edge. This is not new, but talking about it is new, most unexplainable facts become clearer when viewed against the background of these “understandings” which have been in play and continue to be in play.
IMO, He is saying that there are already understandings between him and GCC that they are more flexible as to final outcomes and the manner in which those outcomes will unfold.
that’s because BB is talking about specific points in the initiative whereas Liberman is referring to the cooperation.
perhaps that is because he knew where things were going each time: POD cease fire agreement, faux pal peace talks, cooperation with GCC wrt assembled sunni jihadis in Syria, the latest being that the unwillingness to depose Hamas.
The West itself is not willing to accept the principle it demands of Israel.
The Sykes-Picot order in the Middle East is disintegrating but that has nothing to do with Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria and its absurd to imagine those committed to Israel’s destruction would somehow attenuate their hostility to a Jewish State if a Palestinian Arab state was somehow magically created.
Israel’s enemies want to prevent a peaceful future not to make one happen.