RE: Israeli leaders welcome Saudi peace
By Joshua Brilliant, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSE BY CARL D. GOLDIN
Mr. Brilliant states "Israeli leaders yesterday expressed welcome ranging from lukewarm to enthusiastic for a Saudi peace initiative that would normalize relations between Israel and the Arabs in exchange for a withdrawal to pre-1967 lines."
In fact, most Israelis (and rational individuals) are very apprehensive at the rumored offer:
1) There has been no official substantiation from the Saudis that such an "offer" has been made.
2) There is no reason to believe that the offer is genuine, in light of the 54 years of Saudi opposition to the very existence of the State of Israel, and the presence of any Jews in the Middle East.
3) Further doubt is cast on Saudi sincerity by the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, sentiments publicly expressed to crowds of millions in Mecca this week.
4) There is no evidence to believe that the "Arab World" is willing to agree to the rumored Saudi offer, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
5) There is no evidence to believe that the "Palestinian" Arabs are willing to agree to the rumoured Saudi offer, and considerable evidence to the contrary. "Palestinian" Arab spokesmen have already rejected the offer.
6) Saudi Arabia has no right to speak for the "Arab World", "Palestinian"
Arabs, or any country other than Saudi Arabia.
7) Barak made a similar offer to Arafat 17 months ago, without any conditions. Arafat patently rejected the offer, and began the current all-out war (described by the media as 17 months of violence) against Israel. Why would he accept it today?
8) History, and especially recent history, has shown us the worth of an Arab "promise". 83 % of the Jewish Homeland was given to the "Palestinian" Arabs, to establish the "Palestinian State of TransJordan" (now Jordan) in the first part of the 20th century. That huge territorial concession did not quell the Arab desire to make all of the Middle East "Judenfrei". In the past 9 years of the grossly-misnamed "peace process", the "Palestinian" Arabs have been given control over 97 % of the "disputed" (not "occupied") territories. That huge territorial and political concession has not changed the Arab goal of annihilating Israel and the Jewish populace, nor has it reduced the political and military attacks against Israel. In fact, it has exponentially increased Arab violence. There is absolutely no reason to believe that further concessions will have any different effect.
9) The magical "pre-1967 boundaries" were nothing but the cease fire lines, following the 1948 war, in which seven Arab armies invaded the newly-established State of Israel, with the declared intent of annihilation. There was no "Palestinian" state on the western side of the Jordan, and there was no "Palestinian" people claiming title to the land. Rather, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt were squabbling amongst each other as to how to divide Israel up, when they had driven the Jews into the sea.
10) The "pre-1967 boundaries" would leave Judaism's holiest cities (Jerusalem, Hebron) in the hands of those who would deny Jewish access. It would also leave Christian holy sites under the administration of those who have historically persecuted non-Muslims, and denied them freedom of worship. And it would leave Jewish "settlements", which have been rebuilt since 1967, subject to the same destruction and confiscation by the Arabs as occurred in 1948.
11) The "pre-1967 boundaries" would leave Israel extremely vulnerable to continued Arab attack. For example, from 1948 to 1967, the Syrians used the highly-fortified Golan Heights solely to stage continued mortar attacks against the Israeli communities in the Galilee below; the Jordanians used the high-ground in the West Bank to attack Israel with mortar fire, and to stage terrorist infiltrations; the Egyptians staged daily terrorist raids from Gaza.
12) In fact, since Arafat and the "Palestinian Authority" have been given control over most of the West Bank and Gaza, the pre-1967 sort of attacks have resumed ten fold. This, despite Arafat agreeing to "reign in terror and anti-Semitic incitement" as a pre-condition of being given political control of these territories.
13) A number of years ago, Sadat of Egypt approached Israel with a professed desire for a permanent peace. Israel "returned" the Sinai Peninsula (which is of immense strategic and economic value) to Egypt, in return for the promise of peace, and normalization of relations with Egypt. Yet, Egypt has violated the conditions of that treaty, virtually since its inception. For example, Egypt has withdrawn its ambassador; the official Egyptian press continually published the most vile anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, inciteful, propaganda; Egypt has rebuilt and re-armed a huge army (which has only one possible purpose).
14) Why should we expect any different from an unofficial, unauthorized "peace offer" from Saudi Arabia? For that matter, why should we expect anything but non-compliance and further warfare, from a "peace agreement" with an Arab/Muslim entity? They have never adhered to any agreements in the past, but suddenly we should risk our very existence on the unlikely possibility that the leopards have changed their spots?
15) The Koran describes, and applauds, an incident where Mohammed makes a false peace treaty with his sworn enemy, and then, while they are lulled into a false sense of security and lay down their arms, regroups, re-arms, and attacks. Arafat and other "Palestinian" spokesmen have frequently described their agreements with Israel as such "temporary measures". In fact, it is the Arabic term describing the aforementioned incident which is used in lieu of the word for "treaty", when there are discussions of "agreements" with Israel.