Friday, August 29, 2014

A geopolitical earthquake: Saudis recognize Israel, shun hamas

Saudi Foreign Minister: Time for Islamic World to Recognize Israel


Anonymous said...


Epaminondas said...

No matter what they intend this is the THIRD time in 10 days the Saudis have emitted an accelerating display of readiness.
This is 'only Nixon could go to China' time.
If you look at the scene, ONLY HAMAS, Turkey, and Qatar on the Sunni side stand in opposition and they are ISIS. Abbas will fall in with KSA to recog the JEWISH STATE (no right of return) and then we will have Jordan,KSA, Egypt, UAE all in line.
Ironically an amazing moment. It also explains why KSA went stomping out of the GCC mtg when Qatar tries to say they do not support ISIS.
However, I can not think of HOW Turkey and Qatar can be moved and HAMAS killed thereby. Nor can I imagine what (BESIDES THE KURDS SWEEPING TO THE MED) can be done to stop Iran from supplying HAMAS and West Bank assholes thru Syria and Lebanon.
But this is a unique moment and Bibi should be figuring out how to leverage KSA influence over the long term (KILL ISIS, offset Iran). It is already obvious that Israe and Egypt see HAMAS in IDENTICAL fashion.

Nicoenarg said...

Saudi cleric saying that a terrorist group that wants to topple the House of Saud is "Islam's enemy" is nothing out of the ordinary.

You don't become the top cleric in Saudi Arabia if you are against the monarchy.

Also statements by Saudi Arabia against Hamas are nothing out of the ordinary. None of that translates to "lets recognize Israel, yay!"

Anonymous said...

Nico, perhaps it's not a literal translation of "let's recognize Israel" - rather, it's an attempt to provide enough slack to allow Israel to do what it needs to do to eliminate a common enemy so long as the benefit is clearly felt in the Saudi homeland.

Following the PBS Frontline "House of Saud" video report it appears history repeats. SA made a deal with the US to address Iraq invading Quwait only to have their more "conservative" cleric's revolt. Apparently, Saudi Arabia does not feel adequately prepared to protect it's own interests either militarily or financially especially given the steady decline in demand for their oil cutting into their ability to buy such support.

Nicoenarg said...

True. Saudi Arabia does not feel like it can protect its own borders or even the monarchy if outside forces didn't help.

I was in Saudi Arabia when the first gulf war started (I was 5 years old at the time). Saudis were running around like headless chickens and begged the US for help. There was literally sighs of relief when the Marines landed in Saudi Arabia. The deal with the US however was not made because of Iraq invading Kuwait but because Saddam said Saudi Arabia was next. I still remember sealing windows and doors and locking ourselves inside our home because Saddam was said to be readying his chemical weapons to attack Saudi Arabia. We were ready all with our own gas masks. Thanks to the US military we never had to use them.

Anyway, with all that said, the deal was made with the US, never with Israel. Saudi Arabia did not object when the US used night vision goggles provided by the IDF. However, they never made a direct deal with Israel. Because that would be as unlikely as Hamas feeling remorse over killing innocent Israelis. In fact Israel did offer to help the US more during the war but it was decided that any overt help from Israel was not going to help.

As for the reports about the Saudi Foreign Minister asking the Muslim world to recognize Israel. It seems all the reports go back to one source: AWD News. And AWD News sadly does not quote any source. So I am discounting this story as fake.

Now Saudi Arabia is making alliances. They are making alliances with Egypt who is vehemently anti MB right now. They also tried to court the Qataris to be on their side but that is pretty unlikely since Qatar and Turkey are both pretty close to the brotherhood. The rest of the GCC stands with Saudi Arabia.

More importantly, I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia threw all its support and weight behind a "coalition" that waged a war against ISIS. Saudi Arabia is already funding Egypt and Lebanon to help fight ISIS and the MB. Problem is, ISIS may have gotten strong on Saudi funds in the first place when they were hell bent on wanting the international community to get rid of Assad in Syria. Anyway, that is a different matter.

To conclude, Sauds don't like the MB because the MB don;t like monarchies and want to establish the caliphate. Hamas is MB hence Saudi Arabia doesn't like Hamas. Same with ISIS. None of that means closer alliance or recognition of Israel. Indirect help from Israel, like the night vision goggles in first gulf war, are a different matter.

Nicoenarg said...

BTW, thanks for the link to the documentary.

Nicoenarg said...

Oh and while I'm at it, might as well go here too:

As much as I hate Saudi Arabia, I would only like to see it in two states: Either under the monarchy of the House of Saud (or someone more pro American) or oil fields under direct US colonization with the local population without any access to the benefits of oil. I prefer the latter option but I don't see that as a possibility.

Any talk to "democracy" in that region, not just with Saudi Arabia but with other countries around as well is stupidity.

Pastorius said...

Great conversation.

Thanks, guys. I have no idea why any of this would happen. Your discussion helps me understand the possibilities.

Anonymous said...

About that documentary . . .here is a link to the entire uninterrupted program, now that I figured out its source:
1:56:23 PBS Frontline: House Of Saud

Cast of Characters - Interviews for this program

Transcript to PBS Frontline "House of Saud"

As this documentary discusses the 1979 Siege of Mecca it mentions the role of the Muslim Brotherhood within Saudi Arabia:

"ROBERT LACEY, Historian: The first Western reference we have to the Ikhwan, the Brotherhood, comes from Captain Shakespear, who was one of the early British explorers in Arabia. And he'd already heard that these people were fiercely anti-Western right. From the beginning, this cutting edge of Saudi power was mistrustful of the West, and lethally mistrustful. For them, to kill a foreigner might well guarantee their place in heaven."

NARRATOR: With the Ikhwan troops, Abdul Aziz captured province after province of the vast desert. By 1926, he and the Ikhwan had captured the jewels of Arabia, Mecca and Medina, making Abdul Aziz the ruler of Islam's holy shrines.

It brought prestige and substantial income from visiting pilgrims. It was also a great victory for the Wahhabis.

The Wahhabis took their name from an 18th century Islamic preacher, Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab. Wahhab was first to see the value in forging an alliance with the able tribesmen of the al Saud family in order to help spread his austere version of Islam. The Ikhwan were living out Wahhab's dream. And they wanted to keep going.

ROBERT LACEY: They wanted more. And they just wanted to go on and on and attack, particularly, the British settlements in the north, and trans-Jordan, and so on.

Prince AMR AL FAISAL: They wanted to create an empire extending across all of the Muslim Umma. God knows where they would have stopped, maybe in France, given the chance.

MADAWI AL RASHEED: So when Ibn Saud tried to restrain them and asked them not to launch attacks into these territories, they rebelled.

to be continued

Anonymous said...


NARRATOR: If Abdul Aziz were to stay in power, he had to destroy the Ikhwan. But how could he, the defender of Islam, justify going to war against his Muslim fighters? His way out was to win over the religious establishment, the Ulema, who were regarded as the moral guardians of the realm.

Prince TALAL BIN ABDUL AZIZ: [through interpreter] He turned to the religious establishment in Riyadh. He said, "You judge this. Judge between me and the Ikhwan." So they looked into the Islamic laws. They scrutinized the holy Quran and the Hadith and found that King Abdul Aziz was right. So they gave the famous fatwa, which said that the Ikhwan were wrong. They had no right under Islamic law to rebel against the ruler.

MADAWI AL RASHEED: So from that moment, they actually changed their role, the Ulema, and they became almost like a force to be used to sanction politics. And that was the crucial moment in 1927.

NARRATOR: With the Ulema's consent, Abdul Aziz crushed the Ikhwan.

Thus the Saudi animosity towards the MB/Ikhwan

Anonymous said...

Another coincidence...via Arab Today: Top Saudi envoys in Qatar talks amid Brotherhood rift

GMT 11:51 Thursday ,28 August 2014

christian soldier said...

when they "allow" women to drive ----then I will believe it>>>>>

Pastorius said...

Thanks for all the information.

I know nothing about any of that. I gotta do some learnin'.

I do remember hearing about the Siege Of Mecca, but I am not aware of the longterm ramifications of the incident.

Anonymous said...

Pastorius, I don't know much about it either. Just what I read in Trofimov's book "Siege of Mecca" and the Frontline video I stumbled upon yesterday (link posted above).

According to the details in the video/script, Saudi Arabia became a state in 1926 with the help of the Ikhwan. The House of Saud and the Ikhwan have since had a falling out, so to speak, and the Saudi's have declared the Muslim Brotherhood their enemy.

Now here is where it may get interesting. You've seen the report "Long Arm of Qatar" which reveals their strong support for both ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Qatar is headed by the alThani family/tribe. According to wiki, they relocated 200 some odd years ago to Qatar from the Arabian land. If I recall correctly, The Saudi leadership sanctioned the individual smaller countries existence over time.
Is the current support for Saudi Arabia's arch enemies the result of some covetous payback from the alThani's? In other words, I'd like to learn more about why the alThani's moved from Arabia some 200+ years ago. Was this move precipitated by threat for survival from environment or tribal (Saud v. al Thani) discord (weak term but you get my drift)?
Muhammedans hold grudges . . .as witnessed with sunni v. shia. Is this a sanctimonious rematch for control of Islam's holiest of holies?

Pastorius said...

It sounds like you have a whole idea there.

Or at the very least a whole set of good questions.

If you put them in order by just taking your comments here and putting them in the order you think they should go, I will post them all on IBA.

I think your points and questions and information are worth contemplating but I think you know how to do it and I don't.

Epaminondas said...

If that tiing is right.... WHY did KSA admit and protect Sayd Qutb's bro, Muhammad, who then taught Islamic Theory at King Khalid Univ. and taught (among others) OBL, and Abdullah Azzam? Why give asylum to those you abhor LITERALLY from the old neighborhood.
I think we have buyer's remorse here. Ikhwan and their sons, HAMAS, AL Qaeda, ISIS were seen as having some utility, but now the child is filled with hatreds.

Anonymous said...

EPA it was part and parcel in the deal with Juhayman at the Siege of Mecca.