Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
A candidate for Kuwait’s parliamentary elections scheduled for May 16th has called for Kuwaiti recognition of Israel and plenary diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.
Saleh Bahman, a businessman running for the Third Constituency, has stated that diplomatic relations with Israel would boost Kuwait’s regional standing and its prominence in the West.
“Establishing diplomatic relations with Israel will be in the best interest of Kuwait. This is an opportunity for Kuwait to express its opinion in this regard and play a more influential role in the regional political scene,” Bahman was quoted as saying.
He added, “Israel is a reality and has international influence... Kuwait would benefit from Israel’s influence if we establish relations.”
Whether Kuwait relations with Israel who boost its standing in Western eyes is questionable. Europe is not concerned with whether Kuwait has ties with Israel since they approach the Arab-Israeli conflict through balanced eyes. But even Israel’s patron the United States would probably not approach Kuwait any different, i.e. Kuwait would not gain any new leverage. America and Kuwait already have a strong relationship going back to America’s liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces in 1991.
So while there is little - if any - gain in the Western realm, Bahman’s claim that it would help Kuwait regionally is an absurdity. The entire Arab world watched in horror as Israel recently massacred over 900 Palestinian civilians, over 400 of them children, and continues to starve the Palestinians in Gaza by denying them such staples as in pasta. Qatar and Mauritania both cut off diplomatic relations with Israel during the most recent assault on Gaza.
Kuwait recognition of Israel would not be one of necessity for purposes of regaining stolen land or pacifying a border, as in the case of Egypt and Jordan respectively, but if done so for the selfish reasons outlined by Bahman; such an act would be properly seen as treasonous Maybe he failed to notice that even though Kuwait cruelly forced out nearly 300,000 Palestinians in revenge to Yasser Arafat’s endorsement of Saddam Hussein’s invasion, the Kuwait people are still pro-Palestinian. During the Gaza offense, tens of thousands of Kuwaitis turned up at march in solidarity with the Palestinians.
And the Kuwait parliament, which Bahman aspires to sit in, stopped just short of banning Palestinian “President” Mahmoud Abbas from addressing a joint session because he was [correctly] perceived as in cahoots with Israel’s attack on Gaza. Kuwait has nothing to gain by recognizing Israel before there is a Palestinian state to also recognize, the act would only reward Israel’s for its massacres and brutal, terrorist-like occupation and all for the purpose of ostensible gains in the name of narrow, selfish nationalism. Even if Kuwait would gain in its standing, nationalism should not override Arabism and the Umma.
If Bahman does get elected, and his opponent may now have an easier time; he will find himself in a party of one. The Kuwait parliament is currently considering a bill that would ban all dealings with Israel. Of course, the government already does not deal with Israel. The legislation would apply to citizens, and the consequences will be high fines.
Further, the Jerusalem Post reports that it is Kuwait official policy that the county would be the last to recognize Israel. The Post reports that, but I am not so sure it is true. I believe this is a Lebanese commitment. Anyhow, Bahman does not represent anyone in Kuwait regardless of how giddy Zionists are whenever an Arab calls for recognition of Israel. Usually, these are opportunistic Arabs seeking to make a name for themselves in the United States, not to say Europe at all, as the “good Arab.” MEMRI can be counted on to translate their vapid comments and in the United States an Arab is only human if he speaks fondly of Israel.
Bahman may very well make it into Tom Friedman’s column as in the case of Mithal al-Alusi; the Iraqi MP who attended a conference in Israel [1948 Palestine]. Friedman and all the other Zionists were so giddy and some even tried to pretend that al-Alusi represented Iraqi public opinion. In their dreams! Iraqis marched in droves in solidarity with the Palestinians during Gaza and editorial pages in Iraq - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - all condemned Israel as the barbaric power that it is and pledged support for their Palestinian brethren. Friedman et al are living in a different world. Here’s what he wrote then when al-Alusi came under criticism in Iraq for visiting the Usurping Entity Known As Israel:
And, now, understand how stupid Tom Friedman is. He is uninformed that the paper Al-Umma al-Iraqiyya is actually owned by...Mithal al-Alusi. What a shock, his own paper defended him. And as for those 400 hundred intellectuals. Friedman could not read the letter, not that he’d know what to do with it even if he could; only one of the 400 is a intellectual of note. There others are all unknown and maybe not be intellectuals but just people indebted for one reason or another to al-Alusi and just added their names. What Friedman also does not know is that when confronted in parliament about his visit, al-Alusi actually punched on live TV a fellow parliament. But that is nice, a thug like this will never inspire the masses.
Al-Alusi is so unpopular in Iraq that he’s afraid to leave his home for fear of beating. And for his visit to Israel, al-Alusi was kicked out of Ahmad Chalabi’s party. Yes, that Ahmad Chalabi! Former American puppet who promised that Bush administration that if they installed him as president, he would recognize Israel. And even this buffoon, who could not even win a single seat in parliament let alone become president, found al-Alusi’s visit objectionable. But even Chalabi is more popular than al-Alusi. al-Alusi then started his own party that has a soaring membership of...ONE: al-Alusi.
Mithal al-Alusi. Look at this face! He isn’t fit to preside over a brothel let alone represent public opinion. .
Instead of looking for some obscure Arab to say something about Israel, Zionists should pressure Israel to accept - with inevitable modifications - the Arab Peace Proposal which, ironically, came about during a discussion with Tom Friedman and Saudi King [then Crown Prince] Abdullah.
RSS 
A few words about the Saudi Peace Initiative—and a few questions…
Text: Arab peace plan of 2002
This is the official translation of the Saudi-proposed Arab peace initiative adopted at the annual Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2002 (as it appeared on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm).
The Council of the League of Arab States at the Summit Level, at its 14th Ordinary Session,
- Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab Countries, to be achieved in accordance with International Legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli Government.
- Having listened to the statement made by His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in which his Highness presented his Initiative, calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land for peace principle, and Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.
- Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:
1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.
2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:
a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
3. Consequently, the Arab Countries affirm the following:
a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.
b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.
4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.
5. Calls upon the Government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability, and prosperity.
6. Invites the International Community and all countries and Organizations to support this initiative.
7. Requests the Chairman of the Summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the Secretary General of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim States and the European Union.
= = = = =
On the face of it, this proposal sounds fine, other than the fact that it was presented as an “all-or-nothing”, “take-it-or-leave-it” proposal. That is, until you read the relevant documents mentioned. There are issues (purposely?) left untouched and a number of very pertinent questions that must be answered.
Despite this Saudi “all or nothing” ultimatum, I have a few questions that I’d like answered before I can even decide whether this is a serious offer for peace, or just more smoke and mirrors.
Can the 19 Arab League countries still “at war” with Israel (Egypt and Jordan already have separate treaties with Israel) guarantee that all the 36 non-Arab Muslim member nations of the OIC (specifically including Iran) will abide by this agreement?
For that matter, can they guarantee that “non-government resistance parties” such as Hamas and Hizballah will abide by it? Can they guarantee that Hamas or Fatah will renounce their declared objective of destroying Israel?
Now let’s take the UN Resolutions mentioned in order:
UNGA Resolution 194 specifically states:
“11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
“Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;”
Two points are relevant here: first, the statement that those “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours” should be allowed to do so. Since this is a “package deal”, there must be some guarantee that those allowed to return to their homes actually intend to “live at peace with their neighbours”. Can any such guarantees be provided?
Secondly, does this include the 900,000 Jewish refugees (and their descendants) from the Muslim states who were dispossessed, disenfranchised and expelled, often with only $50 and one suitcase per person?
UNSC Resolution 242 states:
“Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
“Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
“Affirms further the necessity
“For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (Remember, the original cause of the 6-Day War was the Egyptian blockade of the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping.)
“For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
“For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;”
We come back to the same questions as above:
Can the Arab League speak for the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference)? 36 of the 57 Member nations are non-Arab countries.
Can the Arab League guarantee that Hizballah and Hamas will “terminate all claims or states of belligerency”?
Once again, does the “achieving a just settlement for the refugee problem” include the Jewish refugees from Arab states? Experts in international law claim that it MUST include the Jewish refugees.
UNSC Resolution 338 states:
“The Security Council,
“Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
“Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
“Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.”
(Note: additional research since this was written shows that UNSC Resolution 338 was superseded the next day by UNSC Resolution 339, calling for an in situ cease-fire to become effective immediately on October 24, 1973. This renders UNSC Resolution 338 null and void, according to the UN Charter.)
The first part of this resolution has been fulfilled, what remains is the second part. Any “durable peace in the Middle East” MUST include the issue of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries in accordance with the same criteria used for the Arab refugees. Anything else is doomed to failure.
Any “durable peace in the Middle East” MUST include the disarmament and abolishment of any non-government force, whether it is Hamas, Fatah, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad or any other.
In the absence of Saudi Arabia agreeing to negotiate on the basis of these terms or, indeed, to even clarify their meanings and scope, one has to wonder if the initiative is purely political and not guided by a genuine desire for peace.
Before agreeing to such a blank check, Israel must demand that this initiative be ratified not only by the individual governments of the Arab League states, but by all the member states of the OIC. Prior to making a proposal intended to bind the entire Muslim world, the Saudi government has to verify that it does indeed speak for that community of nations. Without that verification, open for all to see, this “initiative” is just another subterfuge to pressure Israel into agreeing to its own destruction.
Nowhere in international law can one find any statement that requires a sovereign country to commit suicide. Blind acceptance of the Saudi initiative without clarifications, negotiations of the details and guarantees of adherence by ALL parties would be such an act.
Until such time as my questions are answered to my satisfaction, there is no way that I (or any Israeli who thinks objectively and wants peace) can accept this “initiative” as it stands. Show me the international law that requires a country to commit national suicide.
