Saudi prince: Zionism to blame for terror attack

Is this in the same line as Saudi officials claiming Jews are like apes and pigs (and a whole bunch of claims)?

http://www.likud.nl/extr169.html

(I will probably get some comment now concerning the fact that this news is from the Dutch Likud party... )

It is very easy to explain such double-talk: Saudi authorities attempt to present their actions against fellow Muslims as actions against the so-called "Zionist enemy" (cliche created by the Arab regimes' propaganda; Israel has never attacked Saudi territory in spite of formal state of war between the two countries). This may justify such activities in opinion of their subjects, and, possibly, decrease popularity of Al-Qaeda among them.
Population of the non-democratic Arab states believe in myths created by propaganda, and their rulers know this well. So, they make statements that comply with popular myths, these seem plausible to audience. Any other statement would be disbelieved.

What more can I do than agree with you steissd

In fact, despite of lack of any connections with Saudi Arabia, Israel is interested in stability in this country. Israel is an importer of oil (not from Saudi Arabia, of course), and instability in the main exporting country makes oil prices bulge thus affecting Israeli economy and contributing to inflation.

Where does Israel get its oil from? The US, or Russia, or Nigeria? I do not think the Middle-East is an option.

It gets oil from Egypt (according to conditions of the Camp David peace treaty) and from Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela).

Aha.

A question I have is Why is europe always on the Arab side when it come to Israel? Even though they themselves are having problems with the arab population in their country? (e.g. France- Araba immigration, Spain- Madrid Bombing)

Maybe because Europe is not always on a single side clubernj? It's actually quite funny. In certain Israeli media it is said that Europe is pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel. However, in certain Arab media Europe is pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian. I think it is simplistic to say Europe has a problem with its Arab population. Besides that, you connect this with the Madrid bombing. Uhm, clubernj, this is just nonsense and polarization. Just keep in mind that a minority of Europe's Arabs are involved in these anti-West actions. I know that in a recent report in my own country, the number of people involved in these activities was around 100, on a Muslim population of nearly 1,000,000. Keep that in mind, because you tone ('even though they themselves are having problems with the arab population in their country') is quite disturbing.

As BBB would said : Applause!

Not to say that I am taking any sides. I am trying to be indifferent, but I am try to ask the World about its hypocritic standards. It is ok for anyother country to do what it can to defend itself but not Israel. As an american I am ashamed of this double standard, we detain people and throw them in concentration camps with no official arrest. All in the name of peace. Yet, Israel builds a fence and all of a sudden the world throws a fit. All I am saying is that there is no right or wrong, but certainly no one has room to criticise Israel.

I agree with you that the world focusses too much on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But on the other hand: isn't that logical. The conflict has been dominating world politics for the last fifty years. It has had a huge impact on the world, an impact on the relationship between (in general) the Western world and the Islamic world. Yes, there are double standards in this world. And we should fight them.

This is a very silly statement. Criticism is surely due when the law is broken and Israel's so called security barrier is illegal.

Steve,

Nations do drastic things when they are sorely threatened. Britain and France husbanded their resources and took no military action after Hitler invaded Poland, despite the solemn treaty assurances given to Poland. Just weeks after the capitulation of France the Royal Navy attacked French naval forces in Mers el Kebir, killing several thousand French sailors, based only on the fear that they might fall into German hands. How is Israel's situation any different?

It is easy to fault Israel's occupation policy since 1967 - there is little doubt that many Israelis covet the land in the West Bank, while taking no interest in or responsibility for the people who live there. However, what is your answer to the Israeli contention that there is not and never has been a responsible government in the West Bank with which they could negotiate and cohabit? This is a very thorny moral and political question. It cannot be solved with mere bureaucratic legalisms.

This is not strictly true. There were some military engagements. Britain had plans to attack Germany in the west but could not do so without France, and France was in no position to attack anything. Their policy was defence.



Well quite a lot actually. In fact so different that I can't get my head round your analogy at all.



It has been Israel's policy to ensure no recognisable entity exists which could legitimately call itself a Palestinian government or govt in waiting. Only with great reluctance have they recognised the Palestinian Authority and continue to do everything possible to undermine its effectiveness and ability to function as a proto-govt.





The legal ruling by the UN is not a mere bureaucratic legalism, though I grant the problem has moral and political dimensions.

Both Britain and France had treaty commitments to come to Poland's aid if it was attacked by Germany. It took the Allies several days to bring themselves to even declare war after Hitler attacked, and after that diid they took virtually no military action - certainly none to reduce the pressure on Poland - while Poland was overrun. Defensive policy or not there were legally binding treaty commitments which both France and britain ignored. I am not suggesting that these actions were necessarily wrong, but rather that nations act very selfishly when they are directly threatened. That is also my point with respect to the British attack on the French Navy. Sauce for the goose ....




But they did recognize the PA and distribute tax revenues to it. I suspect Israerlis would claim that the PA has not acted responsibly even when given the chance.

The analogy with Israel/Palestine is really not worth pursuing.

But I am interested in what action you think Britain could have taken in the defence of Poland? We did actually declare war on Germany so starting world war 2. That was a pretty big act and in accordance with our treaty obligations to Poland. Germany and the USSR swallowed up Poland in a matter of a few weeks.

What could we do besides declaring war on Germany? We had no army in the field, we had no air force capable of flying to Poland. The treaty with Poland was in effect a last warning to Hitler...that far and no further. But he knew we couldnt do anything practical to stop him overrunning that country and he was willing to gamble that Britain would only make a token gesture then see sense and agree peace terms.

Perhaps we should have done. We could have had a cosy little relationship with Hitler, Germany ruling continental Europe, Britain a useful ally ruling the waves and providing the international reach Germany always lacked.


(And if the implication is that Britain let Poland down, I seriously suggest that Roosevelt's deal with Stalin over Poland's post war status was a far greater betrayal of free Poland than anything Britain did or did not do.)

To fulfill their legal treaty obligations to Poland Britain and France could have launched offensive operations against Germany soon after the declaration of war, instead of the "Phoney War" or "sitzkreig" that characterizad the first critical 10 months of the conflict while Hitler devoured Poland with no need to concern himself about the western 'front'. Together they had military forces that just two years earlier were far more capable than those of Germany and even in 1940 they had at least parity in tanks, artillery, and infantry at or near the border. They lacked only the will. Given the defeatest mood of France and her evident unwillingness to seriously oppose Hitler, I agree there was little Britain could do alone.

My point is not to criticize these countries, but rather to point out the fact that nations faced with immediate and grave threats, often must make difficult and cruel choices. If you are able to understand and rationalize the actions of France and Britain then, it seems to me that you should be able to better understand the view and perspective of Israel today.

It is true that Israel has done her part to sow the seeds of distrust among Palestinians and fuel the struggle that continues in the Mideast. It was also true that Britain and France did their part at Versailles to create the conditions that alllowed the emergence of Hitler and all that he represented. They also at Versailles and before dismembered and divided the spoils of the Ottoman Empire and made contradictory promises to Zionists and Arabs with respect to both Greater Syria and Palestine - actions which also set the stage for the present crises both in the Mid East and throughout the Islamic world. If you can overlook these actions, then perhaps you can also overlook some of Israel's excesses too.

The narrow principles of legality which you cited cannot resolve any of these issues, and it is therefore a bit inconsistent for you to apply them so selectively.

Well I dont disagree with quite a lot of that George.

I only mentioned legality because the UN (of which Israel is a proud member, America less so) has recently pronounced Israel's barrier illegal under international law, that it infringes the rights of the Palestinians and others, that they should be compensated, and the barrier dismantled.

I accept your point that in extremis, countries will act in all sorts of ways including resorting to violence, if they perceive their national interest is at stake. History could not be clearer about that. And its partly for that reason the United Nations as a body was established in the first place.

But we can't influence history, only the present. There is only one world, only one united nations and only one way of getting states to resolve their differences peaceably. Thats why its important Israel abides by international law and why America should use its influence to enforce it. But clearly there is no chance of that.

My own feeling is that Israel has failed to establish itself as a viable country. It cannot function without American financial and military aid, and it will never be accepted by the Arabs.

If Israel cannot work with its neighbours and is forced into taking ever more drastic measures against people in territory it has illegally occupied, if it can't exist without doing these things, then it would be better if it didn't exist.

The best solution to my mind would be for America to guarantee the establishment of a new bi national state with equal status for Jew and Arab in the land that was formerly British mandated Palestine.