Meanwhile, the Saudi Arabian (and US?) Proposal: Cut Aid to Israel

Perhaps the great unnoticed paradox of Barack Obama's Middle Eastern trip came before his Cairo speech, when he stopped in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has kept a low public profile over the post-Inauguration discussions on Israel and Palestine, yet here was the US President making it clear that the Saudi rulers still have a major part in the ongoing drama.

Even more intriguing, however, was the little-noticed aftermath.

One of the major strands for talks, the Arab Peace Initiative referred to by Obama in his Cairo speech, stems from proposals put forth by the Saudis in 2002. Riyadh's post-Cairo intervention, however, did not refer to this platform. Instead, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal proposed a more immediate plan: the US should use economic and military assistance. as leverage to get Israeli concessions. He explained, "If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people's lands, you bear some responsibility."

The Saudi message is simple: if there is to be a grand plan, there has to be a preamble with an Israeli concession. And to get that concession, it's a case of diplomacy walks, money talks.

In late February, Israeli officials were concerned that there could be a cut in US military aid to Israel, which had been set out in a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding promising that Israel would receive $30 billion over 10 years. In the second week of March, Washington assured the Israelis that there was no plan to reduce military assistance.

However, with the emergence of the Israeli settlements as a touchstone issue --- if there is to be an Israeli-Palestinian process, there has to be a freeze and possibly a partial rollback --- aid-as-pressure returns to the foreground. There are some signals such as the report on Israel Radio that “officials in Jerusalem [have] assessed that Israel will eventually have no other option but to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state”. However, the prospect remains that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from personal conviction or the political opposition within his Cabinet, will not shift significantly.

So what does the US do then? Less than a week after President Obama stopped by to see King Abdullah and Prince Saud, let's put it another way:

While Obama puts the Grand Plan A, is Saudi Arabia publicly proposing Washington's private, less-grand, but just-as-necessary Plan B against its Israeli ally?

if Netanyahu cannot convince its cabinet members and faces with strong opposition? Do you think that the Obama Administration can take Prince’s proposal serious and consider the threat of cutting aid to Israel as a leverage in face of the institutions of strong alliance between two countries constructed since 1967?

Comments

[Dave]

If the US can no longer be a reliable supplier of arms, then I believe Israel would look to another party willing to take them on as their primary supplier -- Russia or China. It would certainly raise eyebrows in Washington. Russian arms exports have increased over the last ten years and the Russians are eager to compete with the Americans in the global arms market.

[Dave]

Do you think that the Obama Administration can take Prince’s proposal serious and consider the threat of cutting aid to Israel as a leverage in face of the institutions of strong alliance between two countries constructed since 1967?
********

Another thought: This would have been unthinkable during the Cold War, even when Soviet influence waned after the mid 1970s. Now? Well, there's more flexibility for the US. But I'm not so sure. The Arab countries have never been reliable allies for East or West. Israel is much more reliable. They're too unpredictable.

[Otis]

Rather reductive logic in Dave's responses--1. Where would Israel get the money to buy Russian or Chinese arms, if its current supplier of arms is also the underwriter of arms acquisition? 2. Israel has proved reliable/predictable only in the sense that Israel interests come first. The reliability of the Arab countries has never been tested, except for Saudi oil supplies, and that has proved even more reliable than Israel's own self-interested expediency.

[Dave]

Otis,

Points well taken.

For 1. -- Would it be an issue? Israel is a country with a well educated workforce, modern infrastructure, and is on the cutting edge of both bio and information technology. I think they could afford it.

As for 2. -- I would look to the Russian experience. The Soviet-Arab relationship was never a cozy one. "My way or the highway" sums up Nasser's attitude toward the Russians.

Also, human rights issues and Islam vs West also comes into play. Remember that Israel is a product of the Western cultural tradition. The Jews were influenced by the Greek mind. The Arab Muslims were not. The Assyrians are an exception and there aren't many of them left.

And that makes Israel more of a natural ally.