November 19, 2013, - 2:48 pm

Anti-Israel Saudi Prince Al-Waleed: “We Are In Complete Sync w/ ISRAEL”

By Debbie Schlussel

Don’t hold your breath for this to last, but . . . .



Crazy Ass Obama Foreign Policy Makes Strange Bedfellows

What a difference a decade–and a Barack Obama–can make. Just a decade ago, weird, inbred billionaire Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (the largest individual shareholder in FOX News after Rupert Murdoch) was donating gazillions to Palestinian Muslim terrorist homicide bombers in jihadist TV telethons. And that was after his post-9/11 “donation” of $10 million to then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the victims of the Islamic attacks in exchange for “changing American foreign policy” (away from supporting Israel–and Giuliani told him where to go). And after he was personally awarded and pinned with a medal (for his support of the PLO and funding of Islamic terrorism) by Yasser Arafat, something he brags about to date. But, last night, on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live,” Prince Al-Waleed said this:

[Y]ou really find the majority of the Arab World in complete sync and alliance with the concepts of Israel.

Like I said, this won’t last, and Al-Waleed–like the rest of the Sunni Muslim world–still hates Jews and Israel with a passion, but he needs them in the Sunni fight against Iran and the Shi’ite revolution which is being waged in Syria, Lebanon, and also in several Gulf states, including Al-Waleed’s native Saudi Arabia (check out the Shi’ite-riven Qatif Peninsula). It’s not news to me that the Sunnis–particularly the Gulf State Sunnis–are with Israel on Iran. That’s old news I’ve written about repeatedly over the years. What is news is that a high-profile Saudi prince would dare say so, so very publicly and openly, on a major news network. Here’s the full quote:


BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I always suggest to foreign leaders, to world leaders, when Israelis and Arabs are saying the same thing, and that doesn’t happen very often. It’s worthwhile paying attention. We’re here. We’re close to Iran, and we understand what Iran is doing.


MORGAN: Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, warning against a potential nuclear deal with Iran on CNN’s State of the Union. That deal for the UN Security Council to loosen sanctions against Iran in exchange for suspending just part of its nuclear program.

I want to now know what Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal thinks of all this is. One of the great players in the Middle East, what do you make of what’s going on here, with this tension now between — clear tension between Netanyahu and what he believes is going on with Iran and the America and everybody else?

BIN TALAL: Yeah, as Mr. Netanyahu said that you really find the majority of the Arab World in complete sync and alliance with the concepts of Israel. And as far as Iran is concerned and its nuclear program, there’s unanimity whereby the Arab World and — at least for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region, are very much concerned and worried about the Iranian nuclear program. And even more so concerned about any sanctions that the Obama Administration may give Iran and its nuclear program whereby the results of the (inaudible) sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiation tables disappear.

As longtime readers know, I have no love for the Prince, and the world doesn’t need his halal seal of approval regarding the necessity of finally getting tough on Iran and its nukes and the absurdity of Obama’s deal with Rouhani.

Still, like Netanyahu said, when even the majority of the Arab Muslim world–bent on destroying Jews and Israel (and that has not changed)–is in agreement with Israel on Iran, when even socialist French surrender monkeys like Hollande say it’s a bad deal, you know it’s a bad deal. And, yet, the incompetent (loss) leader of the free world, Barack Obama, continues to embrace the Iranian cobra.

Up is down, left is right, red is blue. It takes an Obama.

One other thing: note that Prince Al-Waleed appeared and said this on the Crescent/Coran News Network and NOT on his own Prince Al-Waleed News Network (PAWNN) a/k/a FOX News. Hmmm . . . .



Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

35 Responses

“he needs them in the Sunni fight against Iran”

Oops – there it is!

DS_ROCKS! on November 19, 2013 at 3:16 pm

What can you expect from the Obamination when his chief adviser Valerie Jarrett is from Iran. The White House is also full of Muslim Brotherhood people like Huma Abedin, chief adviser to Hilary Clinton and close friend of Barry. This explains a lot about why the middle east policy is such a disaster.

Paul on November 19, 2013 at 3:18 pm

The Saudis and the Arab World will never love the Jews and Israel but they’re so scared of Iran – and more importantly, they don’t trust the US to protect them so they’re turning to Israel to deter Iran for them.

Obama’s retreat from the Middle East is making strange bedfellows out of erstwhile enemies and when the French are attempting to supplant the American alliance with Israel, this says a lot about where things are headed.

I’m not all negative on the French socialists. In the 1950s, socialist governments of the Fourth French Republic helped Israel to build a nuclear reactor and get the nuclear bomb, over American opposition.

And the French under President Hollande, who just paid a state visit to Israel, can help Israel to thwart a bad deal with Iran. Especially since America is not willing to stand up for its allies and the West.

NormanF on November 19, 2013 at 3:27 pm

Yes, and this is consistent with Obama’s short-changing of Egypt, Poland, Taiwan, Czechoslovakia, and his increasing rapport with Cuba, South Africa, etc.

But most of Obama’s critics are just arguing for stronger sanctions, which is just another form of appeasement. Unfortunately, there has been a bipartisan shift in US foreign policy towards appeasing and supporting tyrants. This seems consistent with the increasing authoritarian tendencies of the US Government.

Any foreign policy commentator who accepts United States membership in the UN is, in effect, an appeaser. And that’s virtually all of them.

Little Al on November 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm

This Arab douche wants Israel to do the heavy lifting, and Israel to take the risk of bombing Iran, while the Arab world stands on the sidelines, just in case Israel fails, which they hope does not happen because a Shia (or is it Shi ite) takeover of Mecca then becomes a strong possibility.

Saudi Arabia is slowly beginning to learn that, for the moment, Israel is the pin in the grenade, which, if removed, will blow up and blow away the House of Saud. Don’t believe that they favor anything else about Israel.

JEG: Isn’t that always the way? We were slaves in Egypt. . . . I don’t believe them–especially cretins like him–on anything. But I’m surprised he dared “embrace” Israel like this in public. That’s all. Hasn’t been done previously by anyone of his ilk. DS

Jonathan E. Grant on November 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm


    The Arabs are terrified of a Pax Persicana. They don’t want to dance to Iran’s tune.

    And they know as much they hate Israel, if it goes, so does their own independence.

    They’re in sync with the Jewish State for now not cuz they’ve become Zionists or love Israel but out of pure national self interest.

    NormanF on November 19, 2013 at 3:58 pm


      Arabs like Bin Talal are looking around at the mass mayhem in Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and now especially Syria. As he looks around at that, he leaks out a thought that is long growing in the minds of many Gulf State Leaders: “Maybe the Jews aren’t so bad after all.”

      That thought occurs BEFORE they look at Iranian imperialism and suddenly, the thought slips out of their tongue.

      But that’s as far as it goes. It never gets translated into policy because anti-Semitism is the tool Gulf State leaders use to explain the cycles of their oil economy and the need for police-state government. The leaders of the Arab League aren’t afraid of Israel. They’re afraid of their own people.

      There is NO Santa Claus on November 22, 2013 at 8:36 am

It’s worth remembering that the late 40s and most of the 50s were part of a brief period when the Second International (e.g. the French Socialists) were anti-Communists. This did not last for long. But by the early 50s, the Soviet Union (sic) was cultivating the Arabs, and France was still trying to hold on to its colonies. This specific set of circumstances explains the temporary French support for Israel. By the end of the 1960s, the Second International was firmly in the anti-Israel camp, and has never wavered from that position. Those in the Second International who agreed with Israel eventually wound up as Republicans for the most part.

Little Al on November 19, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Yes, politics can make strange bedfellows, as they say. And although the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, the former can be an ally. That is the nature of politics.

As the great lines from the classic movie Spartacus go…..

Julius Caesar (John Gavin): So now we deal with pirates? We bargain with criminals?

Gracchus (Charles Laughton): Don’t be so stiff-necked. Politics is a practical profession. If a criminal has what you want, you do business with him.

Now, these lines were written by Dalton Trumbo, who was once a member of the Communist Party, but who ceased being a member in 1948. But I don’t believe that his past political affiliation should weigh against the merits of his work since then, as Trumbo wrote the excellent screenplay for Otto Preminger’s Exodus, as well as Kubrick and Kirk Douglas’s Spartagus.

Ralph Adamo on November 19, 2013 at 4:19 pm

I hope that your next comment about movies will have something positive to say about someone who was an American at all times.

Little Al on November 19, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    The fact is that some of the most quintessentially American movies with 100% American values were penned by what many would call leftists. But that does not detract one iota from the Americanism inherent in those works.

    For example, most historians and film scholars would consider the movies “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “Meet John Doe” to be a classic American work in its values. Who could be more patriotic than Frank Capra in the film world? And the stars of those films, Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper (respectively); they are as true blue and American as apple pie. Yet, the screenplay for Mr. Smith was written by Sidney Buchman and the screenplay for Meet John Doe was written by Robert Riskin–each with a history of affliation with the left.

    Or consider the classic short subject, “The House I Live In,” starring Frank Sinatra in his younger period. The values of that movie are American through and through. Yet, the screenplay for that movie was written by Albert Maltz, also affiliated with the left. If you want to check it out, I’ve included a link to it below.

    Those works should stand on their “own feet,” without reference to their writers’ political affiliations or former affiliations. Is a communist message built in to any of the above movies? I don’t think so. Unless you happen to believe that equal treatment without regard to race, religion, or creed is unAmerican. Or unless you happen to believe that political candidates having integrity and that are responsive to the will of the people, rather than subject to the control of centralized big business is unAmerican.

    Interestingly, many years after Frank Sinatra did “The House I Live In,” he wanted to do another film with Albert Maltz around the time that JFK was campaigning for president. Frank was actively campaigning for JFK and had a key role in helping to get him elected. But prior to the election, JFK’s father, Joe Kennedy, ordered Frank–in so many words–to cancel the film project with Maltz, because of Maltz’s prior associations. Frank was furious, but he went along with it. And that is a shame, because I think the project would have made an excellent movie. The movie was to be based on the non-fiction book, “The Execution of Private Slovik,” by William Bradford Huie. Of course, nobody would say that Joe Kennedy was a communist, but he sure was a Nazi-lover and racist. That’s documented fact. (JFK was not.)

    Ralph Adamo on November 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm

      Ralph, I don’t need your links. I have been aware of the Commie influence of House I Live In for a very long time. And don’t forget the music written by Earl Robinson, another Commie. I hope you will soon praise right-wingers like John Wayne, Barbara Stanwyck or Cecil B DeMille (not to mention Adolph Menjou whose career suffered because of his hostility to Communism).

      The movies you mention had themes of the common man straightening out the (capitalist) politicians in Washington. The implication is certainly that capitalist politicians are corrupt.

      Yes, Frank Capra was a Republican of sorts, but only after WW II. He was an ardent New Dealer when making films about the Common Man. The closeness of New Dealers and Communists in the 30s has been discussed by many scholars.

      Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Yes, Sidney Buchman was a Red. Remember that the original script condemned the Senate as a whole. Remember that the model for this movie was Charles A. Lindbergh (the flyer’s father, as Paul Buhle in his book ‘Blacklisted’ points out.)

      The brutality Stewart is subjected to at home is clearly meant to signify fascism.

      The Commies didn’t, for the most part, explicitly advance themes of proletarian revolution in the movies. They subtly embraced the ‘common man’, and subtly pointed to what they considered flaws in American society. Or else they championed film noir which did the same thing. And they refrained from criticism of Russia. Look at how many films after 1938 criticized fascism, and how few criticized Communism. Even in the early 50s there weren’t that many anti-Communist films and the ones that were made didn’t for the most part have top-flight talent.

      There are certainly political overtones of the artistic efforts of the left-wingers. Many, many scholars today accept this (see my quote from Critchlow below.).

      And, yes, I can compare the left-wing trash of the Golden Age (sic) with the trash of today. The left-wingers of today certainly see a relationship — look at the commotion in Hollywood when they dared present Elia Kazin with a lifetime achievement award. After all, he ‘named names’ (gasp). i.e. dared finger the traitors of Hollywood. Woody Allen is another who recognized the links, and, of course, Hanoi Jane.

      Do you really think Jane Fonda would have taken the brazen actions she did in the late 60s and early 70s if the blacklist was still in effect? No, she knew that she could get away with her escapades without harming her career. If the blacklist had still been extant, she would have been more cautious. We all know who Sean Penn’s father was. I and others on this site have mentioned it innumerable times.

      Maltz? — remember that he exhibited a streak of independence that was uncharacteristic of the Hollywood Ten. And I have previously mentioned Donald T. Critchlow’s book on the Hollywood Right. One of his key points is that many in Hollywood, especially those on the Right, sometimes compromised with left-wingers in order to make money. This weakness also eventually contributed to the trash we have today. The inexorable slide towards the left took place in Hollywood just as in the rest of society. DeMille hired Edward G. Robinson in 1956, although to Robinson’s credit, at least he had recanted. Critchlow specifically mentions Gary Cooper as someone who, although anti-Communist, compromised with Hollywood left-wingers to make money. Friendly Persuasion is another example. It’s too bad there weren’t more strong ideologues like the underrated Ida Koverman.

      Equal Civil Rights treatment? Yes, many liberals of the time supported that, but the Commies were in popular fronts with the liberals at that time, and, generally during the 30s and most of the 40s, liberals working for civil rights inevitably found themselves in alliances with the Communists who opportunistically utilized the civil rights movement for their own ends. For instance civil rights organizations being urged to come out against the Marshall Plan and the Smith Act?!

      Critchlow, on p. 63 of his book says:

      “Communist screen writers did not conspire to write entire movies promoting the Soviet union, portraying capitalism as failed, businessmen as bad, politicians as corrupt, or workers as oppressed. They did not need to conspire. These sentiments were shared int he 1930s by the American public. For most Americans, unregulated capitalism had failed. Businessmen were greedy. and politicians were corrupt. What Communist screenwriters tried to do was sneak in a scene here and there, or even just one line in a dialogue, that reinforced progressive [sic] views.”

      That just about sums it up.

      Little Al on November 19, 2013 at 11:37 pm

        You present a lot of material in your post, with lots of interesting information, even if you take a one-way slant. Yes, ever genuine movie buff, regardless of political stripes holds John Wayne, Barbara Stanwyck, and Cecil B. Demille in the highest regards. If you search the Internet, you’ll even find 1960s era lefty Abbie Hoffman singing Wayne’s praises. (I actually own a film version of John Ford’s Stagecoach, which was the film that made Wayne a star.)

        And in addition to those icons, the golden era of Hollywood had many other great stars who held conservative views, including William Holden, Ginger Rogers, Jimmy Stewart, George Murphy, Gary Cooper, Bing Crosby, Shirley Temple, Robert Taylor, Bob Hope, Fred McMurray, and, of course, Ronald Reagan.

        You might be interested to know that Adolph Menjou became a star primarily because he was cast in a lead role in Charlie Chaplin’s silent classic “A Woman of Paris” (1923). (That film was one of Chaplin’s few serious films, but I’d consider it among his best work, even though he does not appear in it, except in a small bit part. And Menjou is outstanding, along with the lead, Edna Purviance, who appeared in movies throughout Chaplin’s career.)

        But as I’ve pointed out, we should not be using political labels in assessing the works of artists and actors. Consider the friendship of Jimmy Stewart, the Republican conservative, with Henry Fonda (father of Jane), the liberal Democrat. They met at age 20 while doing summer stock theatre. They also were roommates in New York and in Hollywood and even whiled away many quiet hours later in life painting model airplanes together.

        At some point in their friendship, however the two came to serious blows over politics. After a heavy night of drinking during the spring of 1947, Stewart and Fonda had a bitter argument over Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s investigations of Communism involvement in the film industry that escalated into an all-out fistfight.

        After this well-publicized incident, they were both so appalled by their conduct over their political differences that they agreed never to talk about politics again. They kept this vow and remained best friends for the rest of their lives.

        Ralph Adamo on November 20, 2013 at 4:20 pm

          I understand what you are saying, but I will never be able to watch any Jane Fonda films.

          BTW, McCarthy was not involved in the investigations of the film industry in the 40s. That was the House Un-American Activities Committee — McCarthy was in the Senate at that time, and did not rise to prominence as an anti-Communist until 1950.

          Little Al on November 20, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    You can’t compare the writers I referred to with those writing today. Today’s leftist leaning writers are more akin to propagandists than to the craftsmen I mentioned. The movies I mentioned, even though technically dated, will be played long after you and I are gone. But today’s drivel that you refer to is almost forgotten after the DVD release. Moreover, I note that nobody today is even attempting to remake such classic American films as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” or “Meet John Doe,” even though I can readily envision updates using more topical news and issues to explore the themes of those originals. Why is that? Because movies are a reflection of the current society’s value–and not, surprisingly, so much the values of its writers. But that is more a sad commentary on the state of America, much more than the quality or values of its writers.

    Ralph Adamo on November 19, 2013 at 7:57 pm

And I would gladly have sacrificed the quality of Exodus and Spartacus if it would have meant keeping left-wingers away from Hollywood.

Little Al on November 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    I suppose that’s one way of getting “purified water.” But I’m not into throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Ralph Adamo on November 19, 2013 at 6:05 pm

      The baby grew up to be the grotesque movies Debbie reviews every week.

      Little Al on November 19, 2013 at 6:22 pm

        I can’t blame you for not wanting to see a movie with Jane Fonda in it. Regardless of her politics, she happens to be a very mediocre actress. Some time ago, I developed a theory that politically activist actors become bad actors either because of their politics or because they are weak actors to begin with and use politics as a way to keep themselves in the public eye, especially if their politics are controversial. Sean Penn is a classic example. He is so consumed by his own leftist politics that he cannot possibly have any discipline to be an effective actor.

        Ever hear of Geoffrey Rush or Anthony Hopkins prancing about pushing some political agenda? Me neither. They keep their politics to themselves and focus on their craft, as all excellent actors do.

        But Penn cannot help himself. And his acting suffers greatly as result, even though I think somewhere there is some talent in him. In fact, the only serious roles that I can think of where he actually did a great acting job was in “I am Sam” and “Sweet and Lowdown.” But I think that’s because in those roles he got to play a part of his real self, rather than truly acting as someone else. In “I am Sam” he played a mentally retarded individual. And in “Sweet and Lowdown” he played a guitar player who felt inadequate because he knew he would never be first rate.

        Ralph Adamo on November 21, 2013 at 3:14 am

Saudi Arabia will throw Israel under the bus as soon its dispute with Iran is “settled”. I hope Israel understands what’s happening and we should say a prayer for Israel’s best interests.

Rodrigo Veleda on November 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Do not entirely in concert with your opinion this rapprochement is Short Luved.
It is true that even the blind king Abdulkah managed to “see” & recognize Obama’s Outright betrayal of the USA best allies I.e. Mubarak who was thrown under the Muslim bros. Bus, The Saudies are aware they have Jewish blood running in their veins ( to some extent ), prince Bandar admitted the fact when he was amber. To wash. D.C. Let’s not forget all Arabs came out of Abraham’s seed…..

Simon on November 19, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    The Saudis Simon will have to dedicate themselves threefold to the destruction of Israel to counter the accusations that will be leveled against them. As for Jewish blood, Torquemada carried that as well and probably knew it.
    This co-operation only indicates how desperate the situation is.

    Frankz on November 19, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    Simon, your post sounds like an apologia and equivocation. Just spit it out.

    Skunky on November 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm

      Prince Al-Waleed’s very public comments are a sign of the desperation felt by the Sunnis in the Middle East. As noted by Debbie, Sunni hatred for Jews has in no way abated. However, Gulf Arabs realize(at least their leaders and elites)that their only hope of avoiding Iranian/Shiite hegemony is to actively back an Israeli strike in Iranian territory.

      I even suspect that the Obama Administration may secretly desire an Israeli strike inside of Iran despite their general hostility towards Israel. Barack Obama wants to keep his leftist base happy, but it is not in his political interest to see the Middle East go up in flames.

      Worry01 on November 20, 2013 at 2:08 am

    I’m still waiting for you to clarify your point, Simon. If you’re gonna be pro-Moooooslim at least have the cojones to say so bluntly. You haven’t fooled me with your canny wording.

    But a dhimmi is still a dhimmi, dhimmi.

    I’m like The Princess & The Pea with posts like yours. Others may be fooled by them but I can feel the trickery so acutely.

    Skunky on November 20, 2013 at 9:38 am

It might last exactly as long as it takes for the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons themselves say from the Chinese? Then all bets are off.
That’s the way it goes when you follow an Obama rodeo clown foreign policy.

How did the US end up like this?

Frankz on November 19, 2013 at 5:42 pm

I honestly think that Israel doesn’t – or shouldn’t, at least, have a dog in this Shiite-Sunnite taqfir war. The Shiites are useful for one thing – ensuring internecine turmoil in dar ul Islam: it would be tragic to lose all of them. Or Sunnis.

As everyone here knows, if all Muslims in the Middle East – including Iran, Iraq, Lebanon & others – were either all Sunnis or all Shias, they would have had a united front against Israel. Thankfully, they’re not. And since in Islam, the concept of ‘live & let live’ is non-existent, any differences – however minor – becomes the pretext for genocidal campaigns against other groups.

Just like the 1980s Iran-Iraq war was a godsend, the same is true about the current war in Syria. At that time, Israel supported Iran – not b’cos of any love for them, but due to the need to undermine the Arabs. What is needed now is to make Syrias out of all the Arab countries where it’s possible – Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrein, Emirates and even Iran itself – Farsi vs the rest. Create situations in these countries of perpetual civil wars that destabilize & weaken them, and make them incapable of doing damage to Israel or the West or anyone else in bilad ul Kafir. And while they are at it, let them suck in fighters from other Muslim countries around the world – Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and what have you – and have them participate in this carnival of carnage as well.

The last thing Israel should be doing is teaming up w/ the Saudis or other Sunnis against Iran. Or for that matter, w/ Syria & other Shias. Instead, they should quietly be sitting on the sidelines and secretly be promoting – at Arab $$$ expense – insurgencies in all these countries that would cripple them.

Infidel on November 20, 2013 at 1:12 am

    The Saudis know that they’re top of the list and might be left standing with the warm radioactive afterglow of a special present from Iran before Israel gets theirs.
    To give them credit at least the Saudis know what Iran is up to not like most of the idiots in America and Europe who think that the real problem is Western paranoia.
    Try convincing them that Iran is a threat to be taken seriously on a daytime TV show. Won’t happen.

    The Saudis want to be around for a few more centuries long after the West is a streaming dog pile which is what this is all about.
    Nothing to do with friendship and thawing animosity. Everything to do with survival.

    Israel of course will do not only the heavy lifting but get the bad PR and UN finger wagging as well. Saudis are smiling.
    Happy days if they can pull through this one.
    Unfortunately they have no choice because that’s now the situation that a Democrat president has put them in.

    Forget the PLO, PA and Al Qaeda. There’s nobody that lays the groundwork for their own destruction like the happy shiny people of West.

    “It’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine”, tee hee.

    Frankz on November 20, 2013 at 8:52 pm

No question Debbie that this won’t last, but for now it’s probably better than any alternative considering how the Obamanation “has our back. Thanks once again.

Naomi R. on November 20, 2013 at 9:20 am

OK Let Prince Al-Waleed, one of the wealthiest men in the world (thanks to our oil need and greed) put his money where his mouth is. I don’t Israel would, nor should, refuse to be subsidized by those benefiting from an Israeli attack on Iran since that act of war will no doubt end once for all the fragile relationship between the US and Israel (and it’s foreign aid and sweetheart military arms deals). I think a billion dollars US should cover it. No doubt it is but a drop in the bucket in what the House Of Fraud..I mean Saud- has already spent against Israel over the years.

Michael Stanley on November 20, 2013 at 6:31 pm


You probably won’t agree with what I’m about to say. I think a lot of Arabs (in countries that still have some degree of normalcy left) are looking at the mayhem in Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, and now especially Syria. Slowly but surely, some of them, even Palestinian Arabs are starting to think to themselves: “Maybe the Jews aren’t so bad after all.”

Every now and then, this very silent though leaks out.

All that being said, I don’t see any more Muslim nations running to shake hands in public with PM Netanyahu. The Palestinian Arabs may have finally budged into negotiations with Israel out of realization that “Maybe the Jews aren’t so bad after all”. Still, they made no meaningful public concessions. Just the usual offer to be good for the time being.

In conclusion, I agree with your thesis. Bin Talal’s comment is just a temporary reflex by an OPEC thief who wants Israel to fight his war against Iran for him.


There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

There is NO Santa Claus on November 20, 2013 at 11:09 pm

Arabs are deceptive and can’t be trusted. They’re like a cameleon who shifts tides, but make no mistake, under the mask, they’re fervent anti-semitic!

henry on November 21, 2013 at 5:11 pm

What the Saudis know – and what we are clueless about – is that the Muslim model for treaties with infidels is the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, a treaty that Muhammed made with the Quraysh tribe, and then broke when he felt that his forces were sufficient to conquer his opponents. The basis for Western treaties is Pacta Sunt Servandum, where the terms of the treaty remain binding in perpetuity for both parties. This is why no treaties with Muslims can ever be expected to last for very long. Furthermore, Muslim law and tradition permits only the Hudna, or temporary treaty for cesssation of hostilities with infidels, which cannot last for more than ten years, and must be renewed after that time (and can be broken at any time beforehand, if Muslims feel it would be advantageous to them). But the Iranians have nothing to gain from making any of this known to our incompetent leaders and diplomats such as Kerry, who clearly know nothing of any of this. I do not know if the Israelis are equally ignorant of the religious, legal, and historical basis for Muslim duplicity, but the Israelis are at least pragmatic and realistic about the worthlessness of any agreements involving Iran.

commonsense on November 21, 2013 at 9:23 pm

Correction: That should be Pacta Sunt Servanda.

commonsense on November 21, 2013 at 9:24 pm

heavy lifting is doubtful here anyway, more like heavy petting

Frankz on November 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field