Doc's Talk: The continued courting of the Saudis by the West

Sunday, January 13, 2008

The continued courting of the Saudis by the West

Saudi-Franco Ties a Strategic Choice PARIS, 13 January 2008 — French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s two-day state visit to Saudi Arabia beginning today will mark a new stage in the development of relations between the Kingdom and France. Saudi-Franco relations are longstanding and have not failed to progress over the last decade. They now form part of a “strategic partnership” concluded in 1996. Dialogue between Paris and Riyadh is based on close personal relationships at the highest level and on a convergence of views and interests on the vast majority of regional and international issues.

The creation of a Saudi Kingdom in the middle of the 18th century did not go unnoticed in France. Very quickly, a range of French consuls and visitors to the region brought to Paris’ attention the importance of the new state. During the reign of Saud ibn Abdul Aziz (1803-1814), Napoleon sent an emissary to him and in 1811 an accord was signed between France and Arabia in which France agreed to support Saud against the threat from the Ottomans and their British allies. This alliance makes France the oldest ally of the country which, more than a century later, became Saudi Arabia.

France was also one of the first states to recognize the new entity created by Abdul Aziz ibn Saud when he was proclaimed King of Najd, Hijaz and its Dependencies in 1927. After most of the Arabian Peninsula was united into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Sept. 18, 1932, France was also one of the first countries — along with Russia and Poland — to recognize the new Kingdom and to open an embassy. At the end of 1932, Prince Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz visited France along with several other European countries.

The presidency of General Charles de Gaulle in 1958 and the end of the Algerian war saw Saudi-Franco relations expand within the framework of De Gaulle’s relaunched Arab foreign policy. A cultural and technical cooperation agreement was signed in July 1963 and several commercial agreements were signed in 1965. In June 1967, when France condemned Israel’s aggressive policies, King Faisal made a private visit to Paris where he was received by Gen. de Gaulle.

This meeting between the two great heads of state opened the way for important bilateral economic and military cooperation.

In January 1972, a military assistance agreement was signed and in October 1973, King Faisal made a state visit to France where he was received with exceptional courtesy by President Georges Pompidou. Exchanges at the highest level continued to take place regularly: The visits of King Khaled to Paris in 1977 and of Crown Prince Fahd in 1978; President Giscard d’Estaing came to Riyadh in 1980. President Mitterrand made his first state visit to Riyadh in September 1981 and bilateral relations were given a further boost during Jacques Chirac’s presidency (1995-2007).

A crucial point in bilateral relations was the conclusion of a strategic partnership agreement during President Chirac’s visit to the Kingdom in July 1996. This partnership encompasses many areas: Diplomacy, politics, economic relations, military and security cooperation and not forgetting cultural aspects and the joint action of the two countries who both favor a dialogue of civilizations. The Saudi-Franco partnership was further strengthened by Crown Prince Abdullah’s state visit to France in September 1998 and by a further visit to Riyadh by President Chirac in November 2001.

In the direct aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Saudi Arabia had been the subject of a malicious campaign of insinuations from certain quarters in the US, but the French president offered his support to Saudi Arabia and insisted that any association between Islam and terrorism must be firmly refuted. In 2003, Paris and Riyadh also jointly opposed US intervention in Iraq, predicting that the war would have disastrous consequences for peace and stability throughout the region. The bottom line was that France judged the American Greater Middle East Initiative to be dangerous and consequently, it supported the reform program initiated by the Saudi government, particularly within the framework of the National Dialogue.

It is clear that the development of Saudi-Franco relations has been based on a convergence of views and opinions. Saudi Arabia values France’s balanced stance regarding the Middle East conflict. On her side, France respects Saudi Arabia’s efforts to assert itself as a responsible power which values — and is strongly committed to — regional stability.

During his first meeting with King Abdullah on June 21, 2007, President Sarkozy affirmed his wish to strengthen strategic ties between France and Saudi Arabia and to holding political consultation on regional issues. According to the French president, France believes that Saudi Arabia plays the role of stabilizer and moderator in the Middle East: “France recognizes the primary role played by Saudi Arabia on the Arab stage and in the Muslim world, under the enlightened guidance of King Abdullah. Saudi-Franco friendship is a historic and strategic choice.”

For his part, the Saudi king emphasizes the importance attached by the Kingdom to the quality of its relationship with France. He has declared that France is a great and respected power which plays a crucial role in the Middle East and that “the world listens attentively to the voice of France because it is a just and equitable voice.”

Under such conditions, Saudi-Franco cooperation is destined to develop, both in terms of bilateral relations and in terms of concerted diplomatic action. The Saudi-Franco Axis is particularly important at a time when the Middle East is experiencing dangerous crises which risk setting the entire region alight.

In this respect, it must be noted that there exists both a shared desire to find the means to prevent a catastrophe as well as a veritable convergence of views between Paris and Riyadh on all the major issues: The Israeli-Arab conflict and the need for a viable Palestinian state; the Lebanese crisis, the tragedy in Iraq resulting from the illegal war started by the US in 2003; the question of Darfur and attempts to destabilize Sudan as well as the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the maintenance of the necessary balance of power between Arabs and Persians. France also supports the Arab Peace Plan proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted during the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002 and relaunched during the Riyadh Summit of March 2007.

France appreciates the role played by King Abdullah in encouraging the likelihood of peace in the Middle East and in promoting a dialogue of civilizations. President Sarkozy is personally very attached to the promotion of dialogue and says: “The whole world needs Saudi Arabia in order to avoid a clash of civilizations.” The question of dialogue between civilizations confronting the threat of a clash suggested by certain people in the US is at the center of Saudi and French diplomacy. Many in France are conscious that the historic opportunity to push this dialogue forward comes from the wisdom and lucidity of King Abdullah.

As underlined by Charles Saint-Prot, an academic specializing in Islam: “The Saudi-Franco friendship is also an effective means to improve the understanding of Islam and its great civilization in order to make progress in the dialogue between peoples and the understanding between the Christian and Muslim world.”

Given these conditions, everything suggests that President Sarkozy’s visit to Riyadh will be marked by expanding cooperation in new and important areas between the two countries.

Comment: What do the few inside Western leaders know about the coming oil prices? Why are they in unison "chumming" up so publicly to the Saudis? Follow the money!.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk