X Close

Why MBS wants peace with Israel Saudi Arabia would quietly welcome the demise of Hamas

MBS is a pragmatist like his forefathers. Chesnot/Getty Images

MBS is a pragmatist like his forefathers. Chesnot/Getty Images


December 4, 2023   6 mins

The 1945 meeting between American President Franklin Roosevelt and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz, which laid the foundation for their nations’ enduring relationship, is often portrayed as an exchange of oil for security cooperation. But in reality, oil was hardly discussed. The conversation aboard the USS Quincy, afloat in the Suez Canal, focused on Palestine.

President Roosevelt told King Abdulaziz how the Jews of Europe had suffered indescribable horrors at the hands of the Nazis: eviction from their homes, destruction of their property, torture of their families, and mass murder. Could the king help with their resettlement?

The king replied that the Jews and their descendants should be given the best “lands, flocks and wells” of the Germans who had oppressed them. When the President said that the Jews did not trust the Germans and had no desire to stay in Germany, Abdulaziz replied that if the Allies did not think they could control the Germans, then why had they fought such a costly war? Certainly, he would never leave a defeated enemy in a position to strike back in the future.

When the President tried again, he received a similar reply: “Amends should be made by the criminal, not by the innocent bystander. What injury have the Arabs done to the Jews of Europe? It is the Christian Germans who stole their homes and lives. Let the Germans pay.” Had Roosevelt not dropped the issue, the meeting might well have ended acrimoniously.

Today, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the Jewish people has once again come under scrutiny. A historic peace deal between Saudi and Israel has been put on hold since the outbreak of war in Gaza. And the week before last, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) called for an “immediate halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza”.

Yet Saudi leaders have always been pragmatists. Two years after the meeting on the USS Quincy, King Abdulaziz’s son, the future King Faisal, led the Saudi delegation to the United Nations, where he tried to prevent the partition of Palestine. He failed, and the United States successfully mobilised support for partition. But although King Abdulaziz was angry and disappointed by Washington’s recognition of Israel, he never threatened the American air base or oil concessions in Saudi Arabia. He placed too great a value on promoting regional stability and maintaining strong relations with the US to risk a diplomatic confrontation.

For most of the last 75 years, Saudi Arabia has tried to stay out of Arab-Israeli wars and promote reconciliation. In 1948, the Saudis contributed two companies of infantry, which fought under Egyptian command. In the Six-Day War of 1967, a Saudi brigade moved slowly towards Jordan, arriving only when a ceasefire was about to be declared. And during the 1973 Arab-Israel War, Saudi Arabia sent one brigade to join the Arab Foreign Legion with strict instructions not to become involved in the fighting. By the time it reached Damascus, the hostilities were over.

King Abdulaziz (1875-1953) was always more worried about his Hashemite rivals in Jordan and Iraq than about Israel. His son, King Faisal (1906-1975), regarded Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, not the Jewish state, as the greatest threat to his kingdom. And today, Saudis are far more concerned with threats from Iran and it proxies in Yemen and Iraq than they are with Israel.

After the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Arab leaders met in Khartoum, where they adopted their reflexive “Three Noes” with regard to Israel. “No recognition, No negotiation and No reconciliation.” With the exception of Egypt, this remained their unanimous, unwavering and unhelpful position for the next 15 years. Only in 1981 did the then Saudi Crown Prince Fahd (1921-2005) put forth a fresh proposal by which “all states in the region should be able to live in peace”. Fahd’s plan did not explicitly recognise Israel, but it implied that this was possible after the creation of a Palestinian state and a return to Israel’s 1967 borders.

That was a radical proposal 42 years ago. A watered-down version of Fahd’s plan was adopted in 1982 by Arab leaders meeting in Morocco. Known as the Fez Plan, it remains the Arab League’s policy to this day. President Ronald Reagan called it “the single largest step towards peace on which the Arab World has been able to agree”.

In 2002, then Crown Prince Abdullah (1924-2015) repeated the Saudi offer to Israel to the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman: “full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with UN resolutions, including Jerusalem, for full normalisation of relations.” The following month Abdullah presented his plan to the Arab Summit in Beirut, where a modified version was unanimously adopted. The Beirut Plan differed from the Fez Plan in that it explicitly stated the conditions under which the Arabs would “consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and sign a peace agreement with Israel”.

At both Fez and Beirut, the Saudi proposals were more forward-leaning than the eventual Arab consensus. In both instances, however, the Saudis led the effort by taking political risks and spending financial capital to convince other Arab leaders to go as far as they did. Neither proposal was fully acceptable to Israel or the United States. However, they remain the most constructive plans put forward by the Arabs to date. King Salman has reaffirmed them more than once.

On top of its own initiatives, Saudi Arabia has almost always supported American efforts to negotiate an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only notable exception was its breaking off of diplomatic relations with Egypt in 1979 after President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel. Yet even when Riyadh followed the Arab consensus in severing ties with Cairo, the Saudis did not completely cut off financial aid to Egypt, or expel thousands of Egyptian guest workers from their country.

In 2020, the Trump Administration orchestrated the Abraham Accords, through which the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco all normalised relations with Israel. Riyadh implicitly supported the deal by allowing Saudi journalists to write op-eds praising it. It is unlikely it would have materialised had the Saudis strongly objected and Riyadh implicitly supported the settlement by allowing Saudi journalists to praise it.

In recent years, the benefits for Saudi of making peace with Israel have significantly increased, while the costs have appeared to decline. The latter were largely political: older Saudis who grew up with Nasser’s Arab Nationalism continue to regard unwavering support for Palestine as an essential part of their Arab identity. As the guardians of Mecca, the Saudis cannot ignore widespread sympathy for Palestine in the Muslim world. Nor can they remain indifferent to the status of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem.

Yet peace with Israel would be a massive boost to Saudi Arabia’s national security. It would improve Saudi Arabia’s relations with its most important security partner, the United States — and reduce opposition to those relations among the Saudi public. What’s more, peace would strengthen Saudi Arabia’s hand against Iran, which since the 1979 Iranian Revolution has challenged Saudi leadership in the Muslim World and sought to extend its influence in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Despite the recent Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, Saudi and Israeli leaders still share many reasons to resist Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony and nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have another goal in common: suppressing radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, Isis, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Like the Shi’a revolutionary government in Tehran, many radical Sunni Islamist groups seek to destroy both Israel and the Arab monarchies. Having suffered from numerous al-Qaeda attacks themselves, the Saudis understand the threat of jihadist militants. They have a long-strained relationship with Iranian-backed Hamas, as well as its junior partner, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Saudi authorities have arrested or deported Hamas supporters in Saudi Arabia and would quietly welcome the organisation’s demise. This gives Saudi Arabia and Israel further grounds for cooperation.

The two nations also have economic interests in common. MBS has staked his political future on the success of Vision 2030, an ambitious development programme that aims to diversify his economy away from oil. But his reforms won’t succeed if the Middle East is consumed by a major war, and therefore it is in his interests to promote lasting peace with Israel.

Furthermore, to succeed, Vision 2030 will require foreign direct investment, technology transfer, increased non-oil trade, and even more tourists — all of which Israel has in abundance. Another goal of Vision 2030 is the creation of a local defence industry. Saudi Arabia has a defence budget larger than Britain or Germany, but today nearly all its weapons and military equipment are imported. The new General Authority for Military Industries wants to change that — and Israel, with its sophisticated defence industry, is well-placed to help.

Ironically, the terrorist attacks of October 7 have made a Saudi-Israeli peace deal both more desirable — and even more difficult. Those who thought that regional peace could be established without addressing the plight of the Palestinians have been proven wrong. Instead, pro-Palestinian sympathies have been reignited across the Muslim world. It is now unthinkable for any Saudi leader to embrace peace with Israel before meaningful progress is made towards establishing a Palestinian state.

With the terrorist attacks of October 7, Hamas has managed to derail efforts to establish Saudi-Israeli peace. And yet, Saudi Arabia and Israel remain united in their desire to avoid a larger regional conflict, eliminate terrorism, and reinvigorate that peace process.  The case for rapprochement remains compelling and their leaders remain interested in it. But in an increasingly multipolar world, it will require a determined, coordinated, multinational effort to comfort the injured, reassure the fearful, calm the angry and remove the remaining political obstacles to peace.


David H. Rundell is a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia and the author of Vision or Mirage: Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

64 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago

Hamas needs to be squished. Full stop. There’s my detailed and thoughtful take for the day! 😉

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Not that I’d disagree, but that would give only temporary relief. It will need to stay squished, to get anything like a peace. That requires some other organisation with the legitimacy and power to suppress it, and its successors. It also requires giving the Palestinians some conditions where they can reasonably look forward to a better future instead of staying mired in misery and dreaming of getting their own back. It will be hard enough regardless, but unless you go for perpetual war or full-on ethnic cleansing you will need carrots as well as sticks.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Stuart Bennett
Stuart Bennett
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I suggest not electing bloodthirsty religious fascists next time an election is held.

Gerard A
Gerard A
1 year ago
Reply to  Stuart Bennett

Your comment is a bit ambiguous. Are you referring to Hamas or Netanyahu and his coalition partners?

P N
P N
1 year ago
Reply to  Gerard A

Are you referring to Netanyahu’s handling of Israel’s response to the terror attacks of 7 October? What would you have Israel do? Suffer in silence? Flee the Middle East? Or, most improbably of all, fight a “nice” war with no civilian casualties and where Hamas don’t use human shields?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  P N

Unfair. Even if you back Israel’s response (and I do, more or less, faute de mieux) ‘bloodthirsty religious fascists’ could well refer to some of Netanyahu’s coalitions partners.

Sara Gon
Sara Gon
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yes, but at least there’ll be lots of elections that could have them removed from power. Hamas and the PA on the other hand….

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

No, it cannot. Because while they may be extreme, they have not launched an attack or invasion of Gaza or Palestinian areas.

Gerard A
Gerard A
1 year ago
Reply to  P N

No I am talking about the religious zealots and their behaviour in the West Bank

Martin M
Martin M
1 year ago
Reply to  P N

I would have had Israel defend the attack in real time, rather than after the event. The impression conveyed was that on 7 October, the IDF was down the pub for a long lunch.

Rafi Stern
Rafi Stern
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

A solution would start with the dismantling of UNWRA and the resettlement of refugees. After 75 years it is high time that the third generation of Palestinians born to the refugees of 1948 be freed from their misery of perpetual victimhood and be offered better lives. That and an uncompromising war against the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida, ISIS and their murderous offshoots.

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
1 year ago
Reply to  Rafi Stern

How?

Rafi Stern
Rafi Stern
1 year ago

How, which part?
If a real effort were made by the UN to resettle the descendants of the 1948 refugees instead of playing along with the effort to make the problem intractable, the Palestinian refugees could start getting on with their much better lives. Like the millions of other refugees from other conflicts around the world.
As for the uncompromising war: by killing and destroying them wherever they sprout up.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago
Reply to  Rafi Stern

Many of them are so indoctrinated into that way of thinking, that they won’t go. They know if they step out of it, that it is gone.

And the Arab world doesn’t have a whole lot of cultural accretions aside from its faith, and the places it emerged.

That faith allows no quarter for the arts, music, painting, sculpture, civil governance, non-religious philosophy . . . and knows no fine sausage nor drafts of wine.

Although, I’d make the offer to leave as enticing as possible in order to see what % stay.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Rafi Stern

Hm, ‘resettle’. Neither Egypt nor Jordan want Palestinian refugees and the West certainly doesn’t want them. Just check out Emil Kirkegaard’s post on Demark’s experience of taking in Palestinians. So which lucky country would you like to foist them on?

Last edited 1 year ago by Keith Merrick
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

The USA off course , ‘they’ would feel perfectly at home in the Rogue State.
Somewhere in the far north and incredibly cold should be the preferred choice.

John Solomon
John Solomon
1 year ago

Perhaps Santa could use them as elves?

Rafi Stern
Rafi Stern
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

I heard that Scotland and Australia are prepared to take some in. Their Arab brothers don’t want them. Maybe Erdogan will host them.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Rafi Stern

I read somewhere that one third of U.N. workers are in Palestine. Not a lot of incentive to change anything.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Rafi Stern

After 75 years it is high time that the third generation of Palestinians born to the refugees of 1948 be freed from their misery of perpetual victimhood and be offered better lives

I so agree – but how are you going to do it? You could surely improve a lot of lives in situ by abandoning the blockade of Gaza and letting them improve their lives there, but since that would likely lead to greatly increased attacks from Hamas it is probably not a good idea.

Where would you resettle them, then? I seem to remember that when the PLO was in Jordan they were well on the way to taking over the country in a coup, so King Hussein had to start a civil war – Black September – and ask Israel (of all countries) for help before he kicked the PLO out. Jordan says it does not want them – and quite likely dare not take them.

Egypt does not seem to want several million aggrieved and militant Palestinians either. They are probably seen as a serious threat to the stability of the regime, never mind that the Egyptians people might well see it as a betrayal, helping Israel evict their fellow Muslims. Europe does not want any immigrants, and surely not millions of militant Muslims. And I suspect that the Palestinians themselves – like the Jews before them – would not see a national home in Uganda or Montana as a worthy substitute for staying in Palestine. I am all for peace, but it is really, really hard to envision any solution that would actually work once you look at the details

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Sara Gon
Sara Gon
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree but getting rid of Hamas may change the dynamic

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Rafi Stern

The refugees of the late 40s in every part of the world, or rather their 3rd generation descendants have long since been resettled. This includes the Indian subcontinent and Europe, both with millions of refugees.

The desire to resettle the distant descendants of Palestinian refugees is a veiled attempt to swamp Israel with hostile migrants.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Today I read a Substack post suggesting that a 3-state solution (Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) offers the best long-term strategy. He convinced me.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/a-three-state-solution-is-the-only

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Thanks. That was well-argued and reasonably realistic, including about the problems it would entail. The hardest bit would probably be how to convince Israel to let go of its stranglehold on Palestinian territories and force its settlers off their current lands, when the short term effect is quite likely to give them a couple of more wars with well-prepared Palestinian enemies before the conflict freezes.
Regrettably ethnic cleansing has actually been the only solution that brought peace to some otherwise intractable wars: East Prussia, the Sudetenland, Croatia v. Serbia, Turkey v. Greece, Turkey v. Armenia, Spain v. Islam,…

G K
G K
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Pipe dreams unfortunately for the same reason as two state solution is unrealistic. The nation state status will only allow Palestinians to accumulate more and deadlier weapons. It’ll all the same but much worse. It’s the question of Palestinian identity not of economy or political settlement. People will readily die for it

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  G K

Quite likely it would not work, but then, maybe this problem just cannot be solved. At least the author is realistic about a lot of the problems. He is saying that:

– Palestinians will never be happy with less than getting all of their land back, for themselves alone, and will never concede that the Jews have a right to be here. They will not even say that they abandon their ‘right of return’, let alone mean it.

– Palestinians will not accept being assimilated or subjugated by Egypt or any other Arab country, and the countries in question will not take on the thankless and violent job of trying.

– Palestinians and Jews will never start feeling like one people, and so cannot share one state.
For a stable, peaceful result, you would need both sides to have some kind of state and good enough lives that they have something to lose from going to war – which they do not have now. AND you would need them to accept that the chances of getting everything they want are too low to be worth the risk. Arguably that is the kind of thing that keeps peace between Greece and Turkey, nowadays.

Given all that, his ‘three-state solution’ would give the Palestinians something to lose, without requiring that they admit to themselves or anyone else that they have lost and are never going to get the old land back. The idea is that eventually they give up continuous war as too costly. It could be stable – the problem is how you got there. It would require Israel to accept that they would be under permanent threat, just one lost war away from catastrophe and one intelligence failure away from a massacre. It would require patiently fighting ever more wars till the Palestinians grew tired of it, while leaving the Palestinian nations independent and relatively prosperous – and so the better able to fight. And it would require Israel to give up on its own claims to all the land and use its army against the hundreds of thousands of settlers in what could well amount to a civil war.

So, yes, it might work in the long term. But if I was Israeli I would probably consider an alternative. If the Palestinians will give nothing in return for all those Israeli concessions, if they will hate you and fight you no matter what you do, and the only way to stop them is to keep fighting until they finally tire and allows the war to freeze. Well, how much worse would it be for Israel if they evicted the Palestinians from all of the land and at least fought the inevitable wars from within better borders?

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
starkbreath
starkbreath
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Excellent dissection of the issues surrounding the concept of the hallowed two (or three, now) state solution.

Martin M
Martin M
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Nice plan in theory, but Gaza isn’t presently viable as a stand-alone country. I mean, doesn’t its water and electricity come from Israel?

Sara Gon
Sara Gon
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What conditions do you have in mind?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Sara Gon

Fairly vague ones. As a faraway European with no skin in the game I should not presume to be an expert. But since you ask:

For now the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank both seem to be living more or less under Israeli control, with no way to take control of their own destiny, no promise of economic development, and a lot of irremediable poverty. If you are a Palestinian and want to do something active to make a better future for your children and the people around you – what do you do, exactly? Where do you put your energies? It is hard to convince people to stop yearning for the right of return and make something of themselves instead, if they live in miserable conditions with no prospect of improving things. So, prosperity, open borders, control of their own lives and state, a situation where making a success of your family and your country is actually a realistic goal. How many Palestinians would be tempted by this possibility if it meant giving up their claim to the right of return I would not pretend to know. But as long as you are living in Gaza under Israeli blockade or on the West Bank with settlers stalking the olive groves it will surely be hard to find a promising alternative to resistance.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree with you. Better conditions without hate being taught from kindergarten and on has potential to increase love, tolerance, and peace in any human society. Question: can this be accomplished in Gaza?

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Ah…the old ‘simple solution to complex’ problem gambit. Thank goodness there are some commenters on here with more nuanced opinions.
Hamas being ‘squished’ has so far cost 15,000 civilian deaths and the body count rising is daily. Every one of those deaths will create a dozen new jihadis, determined to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and hating the West for their support of this carnage.
So that’s your long-term solution? Simples.

P N
P N
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

What would you have Israel do? Suffer in silence? Flee the Middle East? Or, most improbably of all, fight a “nice” war with no civilian casualties and where Hamas don’t use human shields?

The “cost” of 15,000 civilian deaths (source: Hamas) is the fault of Hamas not Israel. Hamas, not Israel, brought war to Gaza and responsibility for each and every death lies with Hamas. The carnage is Hamas’s not Israel’s.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

I think the number of deaths reported by Hamas is 15,000 but how many of these are Hamas fighters? Who knows! However there is no doubt that their women and children are being killed in the Israeli reprisals.
A peace settlement is urgently needed.

John Solomon
John Solomon
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Do you really think that Hamas cares in the least about the deaths of Palestinian women and children? They don’t.
We do, but then we are not depraved bestial vermin like Hamas.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  John Solomon

There’s NOTHING bestial about e’m! They are, very regrettably all too HUMAN!

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

15,000 civilians dead, 0 terrorists dead? How odd … Israel can’t seem to find and kill even ONE terrorist no matter how hard they try. Hamas must be invincible! 😉 😉

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

It would be nice to know to what degree ‘normal Palestinians’ agree with Hamas. ‘Squishing’ Hamas may leave Gaza still full of Jew-hating Arab Muslims.

John Solomon
John Solomon
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

‘Jew-hating Arab Muslims’
Is there any other kind?

Tommy Abdy Collins
Tommy Abdy Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Sadly, I don’t think it’s possible to squish an idealistic belief. It could fade into insignificance if it’s ’cause’ was squished. That would require some radical change of heart from the Jews. A two state solution is probably the only way out and IMHO should be being vigorously pursued by all parties. The ‘settlers’ – who have caused so much of the problem – should be allowed to live peacefully within the new country boundaries of Palestine in a diminishing way. ie no new buildings, demolition of buildings as a family dies out or moves – compensation to descendants if necessary, to achieve this.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago

Squishable or not, I don’t call ‘Kill all the Jews’ an idealistic belief.

Bullfrog Brown
Bullfrog Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

And my simple addition, is that the evil of axis needs to be destroyed with Hamas .. ie Hezbollah and Iran. Let’s not forget Qatar has been funding Hamas & that needs to stop.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
1 year ago

Useful as a summary of Saudi thought over the last 60 years. Weak because there was not a single mention of Çhina or Russia.
The writer talks of worries regarding the destabilising effect of Iran but who is supporting Iran?
Last week someone on this site suggested that the Sunni-Shi’ite divide was far more important than Palestine/Israel when talking about peace in the Middle East. I agreed then and I still agree.

A D Kent
A D Kent
1 year ago

Carado – quite right. I posted something similar in response to this article earlier this morning and It may appear here sometime today (UnH seems to keep some comments back for some hours sometimes). Rundell dismisses the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement far too easily – it’s a much more significant step than the too-and-fro with Israel. The Saudi’s invitation to BRICS and the SCO likewise. The Saudis may be hedging their bets, but they may also have a different (IMHO more realistic) understanding of the direction of travel of global power relations than some UnH contributors do.

Beyond the economics, in Yemen they’ve had a few years worth of experience of the not-entirely-marvellous Western weapons systems they’ve been paying massively for (Patriots & Abhrams etc) and seen them likewise not perform as advertised in Ukraine.

Arkadian Arkadian
Arkadian Arkadian
1 year ago

“And yet, Saudi Arabia … remain united in their desire to … eliminate terrorism.”

Are they? Are they not supposed to be behind a lot of the terrorist attacks in the world?

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago

Like 9/11… Still pretty murky how many Saudis were involved in the terror attack apart from Osama bin Laden

A D Kent
A D Kent
1 year ago

Interesting piece, but as is par for the course here at UnHerd, it takes an almost entirely Western & Israeli perspective. There’s no mentioned at all of the BRICS, a group that the Saudis have been invited to join, or their interest in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) with whom the Saudis decided to become a ‘Dialogue Partner’ earlier this year with a view to full membership. 

I wouldn’t dismiss the rapprochement with Iran as easily as the author does. It was a massive step given the key role the Saudis played (along with the US & UK) in fermenting and funding the Dirty War in Syria. That’s the war that gives the lie to the author’s (IMO utterly preposterous)  statement that “Saudi Arabia and Israel have another goal in common: suppressing radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, Isis, and the Muslim Brotherhood.” They’ve been directly funding Al Nuzra in Syria for a decade now with Israel treating their soldiers and acting at times as their air-arm. Both have been happy to ally with and use such extremists in the past – that the Saudis may be choosing not to do so now in Syria at least is probably a much more significant development than their current machinations with the Israelis. 

I’m of the opinion that this may have something to do with the West’s recent failures in Ukraine & the perceived prospects for the post CV19 European economy especially now they’ve chosen to sanction themselves from all that cheap Russian energy. The Saudis can see the direction of travel here – they’re not stupid.  

Bernard Brothman
Bernard Brothman
1 year ago

Imagine if Roosevelt would have agreed to establish a Jewish state in Western Germany after WW2. Now back to the present.
I’d start with UNRWA, or dismantling it to the point. The Gazans need a place to live. Other than young Western liberals and their sympathizers, no one seems to like or want them. However, they’re there and need a place and way to live after the destruction of Hamas. Israel also needs peace and security, which won’t come about with Hamas in power.
Like there was de-Nazification in Germany after WW2, there needs to be de-Hamasinization after this Gaza War. It starts in the education system in which the children are taught useful skills (not rocket making or martyrdom) and to live in peace with their neighbors. Prior to October 7, Israel was letting thousands of Gazans come to work in Israel, permitting cross border trade, offering healthcare when needed and supplying electricity. Not things typically found in an “open air-prison.” If Gazan was an open air prison, Hamas were the jailers. They spent the money on tunnels and weapons.
Gaza and Israel will need to be rebuilt and repaired. Gaza will need external, non-radical and certainly not UN help in rebuilding and creating new ways of living in in peace with Israel.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bernard Brothman
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

Who would do the teaching – and keep public oprder and suppress nascent terrorist organisations?

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago

Germany was totally destroyed after WWII and had to start from 0. But then the German population is very industrious and with the help of the US‘s Marshal Plan built a successful country. I am not sure you can compare Palestinians with Germans or even the Japanese. Why haven‘t some of the 2 million Gazan Palestinians integrated into other Arab countries? All the German refugees from former German territories like East Prussia, Silesia etc. had to integrate into West or East Germany. Also the Poles from the former Soviet Union, whose villages and towns were destroyed, had to flee and were settled in the former German territories, which is now part of Western Poland. Why is there no hate anymore between these peoples?

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephanie Surface
Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago

I know nothing about MBS but wouldn’t trust anyone with a smile like that.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago

As the guardians of Mecca, the Saudis cannot ignore widespread sympathy for Palestine in the Muslim world. Nor can they remain indifferent to the status of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem.

***

This is diplomatic wording, sure, but the real reason the Saudis cannot remain indifferent, is what they know about Mecca.

That Muhamad never lived in it.

That it is totally unlike the places described in the Quran.

That even if these towns existed in the time Muhamad lived, they would have been tiny settlements.

And could not have -even remotely- played host to the events described in the Quran.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

In 1933 the wretched Saudis entered into an unholy alliance the world’s greatest Rogue State, otherwise known as the USA for the exploitation of oil. This venture eventually became known as ARAMCO*.
Had the Saudis chosen the British as they should have done, none of this would have happened.

(*Arabian American Oil Company.)

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

Things worked out so much better with the Anglo-Persian/Anglo-Iranian Oil Company? Could’ve fooled me.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Johnson

That was post 1945 and our ultimate ‘collapse’.

Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
1 year ago

As long as Qatar financially supports Hamas……Hamas is here to stay and more Gaza Palestinians to die.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

It’s quite arguable Hamas primary reason for 7/10 was to spike the Abraham Accords and to force Saudi’s into different position. Not ‘a’ reason but ‘the’ reason.

Hasn’t appeared to work…yet at least.
Much may still depend on what happens to population in Gaza as ‘phase 2’ now underway. The calls for some moderation in tactics reflects concerns about the AAs sustainability. IDF will try to walk a tightrope but far from easy.

Sara Gon
Sara Gon
1 year ago

What is he talking about? A Palestinian state? Is that the state next to Israel? Or the state instead of Israel?

David Morley
David Morley
1 year ago

With the terrorist attacks of October 7, Hamas has managed to derail efforts to establish Saudi-Israeli peace.

Which, along with the threat posed by normalised relations with Israel generally, was surely the point. Hamas surely realised that it was losing its position. It knew that it had to act, or find itself out in the cold. It likely also knew that the attack would have to be appalling enough to provoke an extreme response from Israel. Appalling as things are in Gaza, I suspect that Hamas is disappointed that the response from Israel isn’t more extreme.

The effect has been to reignite grassroots anti Israel feeling in Arab countries, and amongst Palestinian sympathisers world wide. Arab elites may want peace and cooperation with Israel – it is in their interests. But it will be hard for them to do so against popular feelings which run so strong.

Hamas knew it had to reopen the wound. Otherwise it would have ended up in the dustbin of history, its cause ignored and eventually forgotten. So it acted in a deliberately appalling way, leaving Israel with no alternative but to respond.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Morley
Martin Smith
Martin Smith
1 year ago

Given Iran’s lukewarm reaction to the Hamas raid I think they and Hizzbolah would also be quite content the see the Sunni upstarts put down.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

The longer this conflict continues the more it begins to look like a contest between DAVID and GOLIATH.

Andrew Buckley
Andrew Buckley
1 year ago

Absolutely – David, King of the Jews.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Buckley

And Goliath was a Philistine was he not? And where did/do the Philistines come from?