Really?

The London Times reports that "the Saudi Arabian government is emerging as a key player in talks to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement" and that "Olmert is believed to be considering a Saudi initiative, endorsed by the Arab League four years ago, as the basis for a peace settlement." This via Andrew Stuttaford who remarks "Good for the Saudis, good for Ehud Olmert."

I agree. My only question: Why isn't this in the American press? Seems like an important development. If Olmert's really "considering" this, the US government should encourage him to move forward.

Comments

Why isn't this in the American press?

the american press consistently reports that iran is an arab nation. details, details. wait 'till the money shot so that the pundits can make faux predictions based on their vacuum of knowledge.

Posted by chet snicker | December 3, 2006 6:22 PM

The US press takes its international cues almost exclusively from government sources. If no one in Washington is talking about the issue, the press won't talk about it. My question is: why aren't we hearing about this from the Bush Administration, who is friends with Israel and the Saudis?

Perhaps the Israelis are finally figuring out that the Cheney Administration isn't their friend or ally, insofar as the Bushies have zero interest in...well...peace. The neocons and Islamic fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin, feeding off one another to constantly crank up the hostility. Neither would be served by a lasting Israel/Palestine peace.

The Saudis are nothing if not wise and cynical men who want to protect their fortunes. They too may have finally realized that despite the American appetite for oil, the ideological ambitions of this White House no longer square with their interests. What, for example, is the effect on the Saudis if the bloodbath in Iraq turns into a one-sided exercise in ethnic cleansing, with Sunnis on the receiving end? Refugees, regional chaos, and problems maintaining their oil-based oligarchy, that's what.

Couple this overture to Israel with the Saudis' summoning of Cheney last week...and perhaps we have a trend.

Posted by owenz | December 3, 2006 7:06 PM

If this is in fact true it's too bad everyone had to wait four years for the proposal to be considered.

Posted by Matt | December 3, 2006 7:10 PM

I would imagine that LGF will pick up this story in the next day or two and spin it as a Saudi plot designed to subvert and destroy Israel, with the eventual goal of bringing about the Caliphate.

Posted by Peter | December 3, 2006 7:58 PM

But we already know the Saudi "peace plan" and it's a non-starter. Israel is to give up all the land the Arabs used to attack her in 1967 AND agree that five million "Palestinian" Arabs can take up residence in Israel. There's no way that Olmert could sell that suicide plan to the citizens of Israel.

Posted by Russ | December 3, 2006 7:59 PM

Oh my, Israel in the feminine tense, with a bonus Palestinian in scare quotes...

The Saudi plan actually sells out the refugee population and will almost certainly never be acceptable to any Palestinian leadership so don't worry your head about who's moving next door.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 8:15 PM

the american press consistently reports that iran is an arab nation.

Can you link to some examples?

Posted by David Tomlin | December 3, 2006 8:49 PM

Why isn't this in the American press?

Because then the press would have to actually do some reporting on just what in the world Cheney was doing visiting Saudi Arabia for three hours the other week?

Posted by Jeff | December 3, 2006 9:09 PM

um, guys, the Saudis have been offering something like this for literally decades, from 1981, and most recently in 2002. for this reason it isn't "news". however, it generally doesnt make much press because it explodes the myth of intrasigent arabs vs. peace-loving israel. its been easier for the US and the US media largely to pretend the offer isn't there rather than nudge its ally along. understandable in some ways, since whichever US politician is the first to nudge is basically volunteering to be condemned as abandoning israel, or worse, as an anti-semite.

Posted by Mr. Todd | December 3, 2006 10:31 PM

You know that slipped my mind. As I recall Israel's responce in the 80's was an overflight of f-16's and talk in the Knesset of lighting up the oil fields.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 3, 2006 10:41 PM

Iraq is the new factor, I suspect. What if the Sunni-Shiite conflict spreads? For all their distrust of Israel, the Saudis may not mind having the Israeli military on their side if things get ugly. Because if regional war breaks out, Israel will be bombing somoene.

Heck, even if the conflict doesn't spread, how do the Saudis feel about Shiite dominated Iran and Iraq both pumping oil in direct competiton with them? There is a major restructuring going on the Middle East, and the Saudis probably want Israel to know that they, unlike Iran and Lebanon, will play ball. They can't just come out and say it...but if they can the Palestinian issue to cozy up and kick start a "working relationship."

Posted by owenz | December 3, 2006 11:03 PM

How many divisions has the Sherif?

Stalin didn't think he had to worry too much what the Pope thought of his government, and I'm not sure that the Saudi royal family shouldn't be thought of in pretty much the same way, at least in respect to the question of Palestine. Yes, the king of the Saudis is the Keeper of the Holy Places, and yes, he has pots of oil money. But Iran has pots of the stuff to spread around as well, and I don't think Saudi money pays for any of the Confrontation States' governments except Jordan, and some, weak, factions in Lebanon. Yes, the Saudis have recently threatened to invade Iraq if the rights of the Sunnis are not properly respected -- but that threat refutes itself, and any idea that the Saudis, plus their dependents, are such a military threat to Israel that getting them and their dependents to sign a peace with Israel would have any effect at all on the balance of power in the region.

Maybe the US media actually has this one right, for once, and if only by accident. Occasionally one of the many stories they miss actually is well worth ignoring. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 4, 2006 12:17 AM

I suspect that implementation of the Arab League plan is the price the U.S. is having to pay get Saudi help with Iraq. It's a bargain for the U.S., -- after all, the U.S. has proposed virtually the same thing-- but the Israelis probably have mixed feelings. Some might even be peeved by Bush.

Posted by Peter E | December 4, 2006 12:25 AM

but the Israelis probably have mixed feelings. Some might even be peeved by Bush.

The question, then, is: what do the Israelis get in return?

Posted by Jeff | December 4, 2006 12:29 AM

Why isn't this in the American press?

Because regular coverage of Israel/Palestine news is exclusively the province of Zionist-pandering entities like the New York Times. :-)

If I were to be perfectly honest, I must admit I often skip over that "section" for months at a time unless there is some more spectacular conflagration going on than the usual because the narrative is repetitive--I can come back and find the news remarkably similar in content to when I had stopped. Ah, yes, the cynic problem. It's unavoidable with Israel/Palestine if you've been around more than a few decades-there's been so many other peace plans that were on the verge of solving it all and it was all so exciting and THEN....

You might just as well ask why there is little coverage of the news of the entire continent of Africa in the U.S.

I've often thought news junkies in the E.U. get an inaccurate reputation of being more informed in general, that really they partly end up reading/demanding a lot more international coverage simply because their own countries are smallish and they therefore do not require spend hours a week reading about their own "region" to be minimally informed. Many U.S. news junkies, on the other hand, feel they must know the happenings in every state of this large union and never end up with enough time to move on to the rest of the world. I just got done talking recent U.S. politics with a British art dealer, and suffice it to say I found him woefully misinformed on that. Even if you hate us, wouldn't you say the major news of our country is important? :-)

Posted by artappraiser | December 4, 2006 1:28 AM

It isn't in the Israeli press either. Olmert has been making peace noises, however - he is an incredibly unpopular leader looking for a reason to be holding office.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | December 4, 2006 3:06 AM

It must be the James Baker thing; when he's about you can bet the Saudis are not far behind. My question is, will it be the Saudis or the Israelis first to the line to once again sell out the Palestinians from their homeland?

Posted by The Other Alan | December 4, 2006 2:51 PM