Talking Turki, Part II

In today's Financial Times, letter writer Sue Kelly responds to Turki al-Faisal's op/ed column of last week:

Sir, So the patience of Saudi Arabia is running out (Comment, January 23). So also is the patience of the average US citizen, but not in the way Turki al-Faisal might think.

[...]

Many US citizens are tired of the double talk of people like Prince Turki. He is old enough and educated enough to know better than to make such statements.

If Saudi Arabia truly wants peace, enough to return the violence genie to its bottle, it will stop its own citizens from funding war and work with the Palestinians to stop Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel, and with the Israelis to end their building new settlements in the West Bank.

The Saudis owe the Arab world nothing less than the strongest effort to build the will of all Arabs forward towards peace and away from the constant aggrievement over the past. It is clear from Prince Turki's article that he has not been able to do this for himself, let alone be able to influence others.

Thinking about this some more, I'm struck by the way al-Faisal brought up the threat of jihad in his FT column, given the carnage caused by Saudi jihadis in the U.S. on 9/11, in Iraq over the last several years, and (to a far lesser extent) even within Saudi Arabia itself. If he weren't a former longtime diplomat, I'd chalk it up to tactlessness, or tone deafness, but given his background, he must realize how provocative this is.

Then there's that letter al-Faisal claims was sent to the Saudi government by the president of Iran. Surely, he must wonder what motives Ahmadinejad has, beyond his stated concern for the plight of the Palestinians (especially given the flattery the Shiite Ahmadinejad included about Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia being the leader of all Muslim nations)?

Talking Turki

In an op/ed column in last Friday's Financial Times, Turki al-Faisal (photo above), former Saudi intelligence director and ambassador to the U.S., the U.K., and Ireland, warns of jihad if the Obama Administration doesn't support the Saudi proposed solution to the Mideast conflict:

Mr Obama should strongly promote the Abdullah peace initiative, which calls on Israel to pursue the course laid out in various international resolutions and laws: to withdraw completely from the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, returning to the lines of June 4 1967; to accept a mutually agreed just solution to the refugee problem according to UN resolution 194; and to recognise the independent state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return, there would be an end to hostilities between Israel and all Arab countries, and Israel would get full diplomatic and normal relations.

Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran wrote a letter to King Abdullah, explicitly recognising Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds and calling on him to take a more confrontational role over "this obvious atrocity and killing of your own children" in Gaza. The communiqué is significant because the de facto recognition of the kingdom's primacy from one of its most ardent foes reveals the extent that the war has united an entire region, both Shia and Sunni. Further, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's call for Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed.

So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain. As the world laments once again the suffering of the Palestinians, people of conscience from every corner of the world are clamouring for action. Eventually, the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel.

One problem with the Abdullah peace initiative seems to be that Israel already is, de facto, at peace with Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries. Mr. al-Faisal's threats of jihad notwithstanding, I doubt Israelis lay awake at night worrying about waves of Saudi jihadis infiltrating Israel's borders¹. What the Israelis probably do worry about are rocket attacks from Hamas or Hezbollah, and the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Since the Abdullah initiative doesn't include Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran, it's not apparent how it would address those Israeli concerns. It's true that there would be other benefits to Israel from a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, e.g., trade and tourism. But the two Arab countries with which Israel already has peace treaties, Egypt and Jordan, aren't major trade partners of Israel, according to the CIA World Factbook.

It's also not readily apparent how the Arab states would benefit from a peace treaty with Israel, or, for that matter, from peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As an article in yesterday's New York Times Magazine ("Revolution, Facebook Style"):

From Amman to Riyadh, governments have long viewed protests against Israel as a useful safety valve to allow citizens to let off steam without addressing grievances closer to home.

Wouldn't a peace treaty remove that safety valve?

The photo above of Turki al-Faisal comes from BYU's website.

¹Significant numbers of Saudi jihadis have, in fact, infiltrated Iraq's borders in the past few years, but Iraq shares a large land border with Saudi Arabia.