What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means

By Liam Bailey

Although official figures have yet to be given, reports indicate that the proposed U.S. arms sale to several Gulf Arab nations will be between $5 billion and $20 billion. The countries to receive U.S. arms are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

U.S. military aid to Israel is to increase from $2.4 billion to $3 billion dollars a year, in a newly announced $30 billion ten year package. Neighbouring Arab states that have signed peace treaties and have normalized relations with Israel, namely Egypt and Jordan are to receive $13 billion over the same period.

Though there have been angry opinion articles in the Israeli press, the Israeli government says it understands the sales are to counteract Iran's growing military might and regional influence. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons, but not the only one.

For much the same reason as above shortly after the Islamic regime swept to power in Iran in 1979, the U.S. and the west supported Saddam Hussein after his offensive war on Iran became defensive: because they feared that an extremist Shiite Iranian government would take Iraq and threaten the vital oil reserves of the Middle East. But why is it necessary to arm the Arab states now, when the U.S. army is in Iraq, preventing Iran taking the country let alone advancing into the Middle East proper?

The U.S. announcing such a massive arms sale to the Arab states, which has been long opposed by the U.S.' main ally in the region -- Israel -- suggests that a U.S. pullout from Iraq could be closer than Bush wants to admit.

Iraq is a predominantly Shiite state and Iran is not without influence in southern Iraq's Shiite communities, powerful militias and even the U.S. imposed Shiite government. There has long been talk of Iran's involvement on the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian violence, as there has been talk of Saudi and other Arab state's involvement in it on the Sunni side. For the U.S. to add $20 billion worth of fuel to that proxy fire also suggests their troops will be out of the way when the proverbial **** hits the fan.

Now, the other story in the region at the moment -- relating to the arms sale -- is the new momentum behind resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, with widespread reports that Bush is determined to force both sides into agreement before he leaves office early 2009. According to most analysts the Arab Peace initiative still offers the best chance of such a resolution, not least because it supersedes the Hamas-Fatah power-struggle -- both support the initiative.

The Arab Peace initiative offers Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which should be a guarantee of Israeli security, in return for their withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (returning Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Palestinian control), and finding a just solution to the refugee issue.

Returning the land, especially even part of Jerusalem, which is an equally holy city for both Arab and Jew (hence their history of brutal wars over it), is a hard pill for the Israeli government to swallow, and harder to sell to their population, especially since Israel's military strength and reputation for brutal retaliation and collective punishment has all but guaranteed Israeli security already.

Israel has won four wars with its surrounding Arab neighbours, two of those without U.S. help. Since the U.S. started its support of Israel they have become the strongest military power in the region by far. The proposed arms sale changes that, as part of Bush's strategy to resolve the conflict as his legacy.

For a start the sale will make the Israeli population feel threatened for the first time in over two decades. It will make the Arab states a possible threat to Israel again, and at an ideal time. With Olmert struggling to stay in power he may feel pressured to accept the Arab initiative, return the Palestinian land and adequately compensate the refugees to guarantee the security of a suddenly threatened population.

For once Bush may have got something right. The arms sale, Olmert's dwindling popularity and a U.S. administration determined to resolve the conflict pronto, combine to make this conflict look a lot closer to finally being resolved. All eyes will be on the proposed peace conference later this year -- mine included.

Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never

Liam Bailey

There are those who believe that all Israel seeks is to live in peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours. Others believe Israel is completely driven by Zionism and its overtures of finding a peaceful solution is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Regardless, few can deny the Palestinians have suffered, perhaps worse, from the occupation – from the thousands of Palestinians killed during Israel's occupations, incursions, air-strikes, and operations in unoccupied or previously disengaged areas, to the thousands of Palestinians forced to live in abject poverty by the Israeli enforced financial blockade since 2006, not to mention the thousands forced from their homes by all the above.

Nor can anyone deny that the neighbouring Arab states are perhaps as much to blame for the Palestinians suffering. After all, if, instead of going to war they had accepted the U.N. General Assembly (G.A.) partition plan in 1947, the Arabs of Palestine would have had far more land than they would happily settle for now and there would scarcely be any Palestinian refugees. Of course Israel may have attempted to gain land by going on the offensive, but would have surely received no support for an offensive war, without which they would almost certainly have failed miserably. Either way things would probably have been far better for present day Palestinians. But what's done is done and what is needed is a solution.

The latest hope for peace is the revitalization of the 2002 Saudi initiative. The Arab League rarely speaks with one voice, but it is currently, to re-offer the most comprehensive peace package ever to Israel and therefore the best chances of future security. As it is this time being offered as a platform for negotiation rather than an easily rejected ultimatum, and given the current growth of Shiite Iranian influence in the region, as well as the world's focused attention on ending one of its longest running and most brutal occupations, if the Saudi initiative doesn't bring peace I find it hard to see what will.

For a start the rare Arab unity presents the opportunity to offer Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which was never considered possible before 2002 and has been called a "political revolution". The initiative also offers a possible compromise on the refugee issue.

Israel cannot grant full right of return because it would drastically change Israel's demography and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews. Although the initiative mentions the implementation of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194, demanding all Palestinian refugees be (granted full right of return) allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel, and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation, it also suggests finding "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem." As the initiative was originally offered as an ultimatum, Israel, with no room for negotiations on a just solution, was scared away by the mention of Resolution 194. Now that the initiative is being offered as a basis for negotiations hopefully a "just solution" can be found quickly.

If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the offer for them. And it couldn't have come at a better time, when Israel needs friends like it never has before to stand against Iran. The Arab's too, being of Sunni faith are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel suddenly may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless negotiations will be difficult.

The Arab initiative demands a Palestinian state on the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war, another demand to which Israel cannot capitulate. Israel has built settlements on the land and other fixtures near its borders. Therefore, for the future security of all Israelis it is widely agreed that a land swap will be necessary, giving back land equivalent to that taken in 1967. The Arab's also demand that the new Palestinian state's capital be east Jerusalem, which has previously stuck in Israel's throat, but hopefully, in the new light of mutual determination to find an agreement, these previously in-traversable obstacles to peace can be ironed out through negotiations. A new issue for negotiations to deal with will be the security wall Israel has been building since 2002.

That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative: the Palestinians were granted a state with east Jerusalem as its capital, on land equal to that taken in 1967, and the Palestinian refugees were offered a home in the new state or suitable compensation, Israel and its surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence. Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security.

With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel and for the first time Israel just as eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or never.

Saudi Initiative: Turn Suggestions into Reality

It is time to take the suggestions to the next stage

By Liam Bailey

CNN showed footage from inside a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon as part of a report of such camps becoming hotbeds for extremism and havens for exiled terrorists, because they are outside of Lebanese law enforcement jurisdiction. The interviewee said the people were living in sub-human conditions within the camps, and from the footage it was clear that if anything it was an understatement. The Arab League unanimously endorsed the revival of Saudi King Abdullah's 2002 Arab peace initiative, at their meeting in Riyadh Mar. 28-29. The Arab League also issued a joint statement calling on Israel to accept the terms of the initiative, which contains a reference to U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 stipulating all Palestinian refugees be granted a return to their homes and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation.


Israel will not accept this. Therefore, in its original form the initiative will always present an impasse. The initiative also talks of finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Among the solutions fielded is allowing the refugees to return to the territories which would become a Palestinian state if the initiative were agreed, and again giving compensation for the life they were not allowed to live. This seems to present a solution but it is never extended upon, i.e. no figures are mentioned and no guarantees are given. This needs to be done if Palestinian negotiators are to take the initiatives chances of bringing an agreement seriously, and not only on the refugee issue, but every issue covered by the initiative

In return for a full withdrawal from territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, the creation of an independent Palestinian state therein with east Jerusalem as its capital and full right of return or suitable compensation for all refugees, the initiative offers Israel a sweet deal. The normalization of relations, which by necessity means full recognition of the Jewish state by all states in the Arab League, practically all Arab states. This is something which hadn't been on the table before it was offered at the Beirut Arab League summit in 2002. For states which have never had anywhere near normalized relations with Israel, most notably Syria and Lebanon this is understandably a hard pill to swallow and something they will not give easily. It is also a pill Israel cannot afford to screw up their face at with Iran's currently growing influence in the region, and Syria's potential to influence those attacking Israel from within by cutting their funding.

But screw up their face Israel will, unless the insistence on full right of return can be suitably compromised upon. The refugee issue is a sore point for both sides. Palestinians, even in the current generation are understandably angry at Israel forcing their brethren off their family or ancestral land and into squalor. Thus, no Palestinian negotiator will accept any agreement that does not make up for the denial of a potentially good life and years of sub-human living Palestinian refugees have been forced to endure. This issue has the potential to destroy the chances of the Saudi initiative to bring peace and every future negotiation, as it has although not alone, those that have gone before.

That is why the compromises and solutions being offered need to be brought to the forefront, replacing the long running cycle of gesture and counter gesture, never anything more than empty words. For instance when the initiative advocates an Israeli pullout from the territories occupied after 1967, prominent figures on the issue argue that this is now impractical because of Israel's settlement building and the necessity to ensure future security for their population. They suggest that a land swap will be necessary giving land back to the Palestinians equivalent to that taken in 1967. Good in theory, but if the initiative is to be presented as a serious option for peace it is time to take the suggestions to the next stage. Those who need to know such a swap will be necessary --Israel's government-- already do know and have known for a long time. It is not necessary to reiterate it; instead suggestions should be made by both sides about which land could be swapped.

The same goes for the refugee issue. It is no use regurgitating the possibility of open-ended compensation, which in reality could and should have been given as soon as it was clear that Israel could ever allow the refugees to return home, soon after the Arabs were expelled in the 1948 war for Israel's independence, or any time from any of the governments thereafter. If Israel is serious when it claims its only desire is to live in peace beside the Palestinians, then, to allay some of the anger Palestinians feel and go towards making up for the refugees loss, what better gesture than to promise them the very least of what they deserve, and state a clear figure to compensate all refugees as a precursor to negotiations on the new initiative?

If compensation was promised then negotiations could perhaps proceed in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, as oppose to resentment and doubt. Negotiations left to concentrate on hammering out the final borders for a Palestinian state and Israel to live side by side, and with normalized relations all round the new prospect of living out their lives in peace and security. By necessity this would also mean a promise by Israel to knock down the security wall where it impedes on the Palestinian state. The two state solution is the only viable suggestion, it's time to make it a reality.