Posted on 10/12/2001 7:07:45 AM PDT by callisto
Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal suggested Friday that he'll make New York pay a price for Mayor Rudy Giuliani's refusal to accept his $10 million dollar check for the Twin Tower relief fund, saying he's ready to "put his money where is mouth is."
The Saudi prince contributed the big bucks after Giuliani gave him a tour of the World Trade Center disaster site Thursday. Bin Talal said at the time, "Saudi Arabia is with the United States wholeheartedly."
But hours later the wealthy Arab released a statement saying:
"I believe the the government of the United States should reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause. Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of the Israelis while the rest of the world turns the other cheek."
Upon hearing about the bin Talal's press release, Giuliani condemned the statement as "highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous." Hizzoner's aides returned the Saudi's money after determining that his check had not yet been cashed.
The mayor's snub prompted the Saudi prince to leave in a huff for home, where he spoke to NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
"He's not backing down," Mitchell told radioman Don Imus Friday morning. "He says he has a big stake in New York (and) he puts his money where his mouth is."
Bin Talal's financial stake in the Big Apple includes a $10 billion investment in banking giant Citicorp, half ownership of the Plaza Hotel, substantial investments in the Saks Fifth Avenue department store and NewsCorp., the parent company of the New York Post and the Fox News Channel.
He also has part of his $20 billion personal fortune invested in AOL Time Warner, Apple Computer.
I don't agree with you that we should bend over and grab the ankles for a culture that considers massacre of thousands of innocent civilians swell and proper, so I'm too stupid to understand. Therefore, in your summation, I must be an extra-stupid congresscritter.
Well, Neville, your approach didn't work against Hitler, and it won't work here, either.
That got me to laugh out loud. Good one.
Did Rudy Do The Right Thing In Turning Down Prince Alwaleed's $10 million donation?
Freep this New York Post Poll Here
1. 61.07% (9191) Yes
2. 38.93% (5859) No
Nice.
We'd need to do that to lots of them at once; AND have some oil of our own before such could take place. But it is the way to go.
Yes, it seems the prince's comments do constitute a threat to the US. Freeze the assets until the threat can be evaluated.
I'm sorry if you have already been asked and answered this question (I haven't been through the entire thread yet) but, are you saying that you agree with the opinion that the USA supporting (drafting even) a plan that offers the Palestinians 99% of what they want is a sign that our govt. is "one sided"? I don't get it. Am I wrong to be under the impression that for Arabs, and you, to perceive the US position to be "even handed" we would have to support the elimination of the state of Israel, or just 100% of their "stated" demands? Help me understand.
Yeah, and if "stupid foreigners" say something that we disagree with we should just shut-up about it because our opinions should only be stated if it doesn't offend anyone. Besides, why should we care about only 7,000 innocent people suffering horrific deaths because other people think we're unfair? Good post OBAFGKM (a true FReeper I'm sure).
Sounds like he attended Guido's 15 min. college also.
Check for ketchup spots on them.
No threat is implied here and the Saudi Prince is correct.
Kinda mixed his "old sayin's", didn't he? The Israeli's fight back. And he would prefer they turn the other cheek, like our "other friends". Israel hasn't been shown to break ANY cease fire agreement that I know of. The Pals of Hillary can't be restrained. Who's the offender?
Israeli's do get away with alot and without much Western scrutiny. The Prince said nothing whatsoever that implied any threat. He merely said that if we are to assert our influence on the relationship between Israel and Palestine, we should be more balanced.
He was right. And Guliani's refusal to take his donation was simply a political slap in the face. The Prince had the audacity to share a view that isn't popular.
If there's anyone being UnAmerican here it's Guliani.
i dont believe that was ever really on the table. if it was and the palistenians refused it, i would have to change my opinion.
What is the operative word in your sentence, (well, it's almost a sentence) is it "ever" or "really"? If you are saying you don't believe there was "ever" a plan offering the Palestinians 99% of what they want, well that 99% figure is what the good Prince stipulated to in an interview on CNBC and said that it's not good enough and Palestinians should not compromise. He added "would the US compromise on 1% of their territory?" He said this while trying to make the point that the USA was one sided in it's dealings over the issue of a Palestinian state. Don't you see something a little Hypocritical here?
If you are saying there was a plan offered to Arafat satisfying most of his demands (even most of East Jerusalem) but that doesn't amount to "99%" of what he wants, then what percentage would you give it? 80% ... 75% ... 60% ? Even if you say that plan was only 50% of what Arafat asked for then you would have to conclude that the USA is at least EVEN handed when it comes down to the issue of a Palestinian state. But it's not. The plan pushed by the Clinton Administration gave the Palestinians everything except some of East Jerusalem and 5-10% of the settled areas. Now since you are defending the sweet Prince, who admits that Israel should not even compromise 1% of its demands, explain to me again why we should listen to him tell us that US policy regarding a future Palestine is "one sided". You would have to assume that he thinks an "even handed" American plan would give the Palestinians 100% of what they have been killing for, no? Is that logical?
And yes, I don't think Palestinians deserve a state, and if they do, it shouldn't include any of the areas they used as a springboard to attack Israel. Parts of Jordan or Saudi Arabia ... sure why not? But the West bank and Gaza Strip was won fair and square, and more importantly, the right to that land was forfeited by the Palestinians, fair and square, when the surrounding Arab Nations conspired to rid the area of Israel once and for all. And let me assure you that religion doesn't enter into my opinion in the least. In fact, I don't even believe in "God" much less the Bible. I just think it's natural and normal for a democratic nation (Israel) to sincerely want peace for its citizens while I'm convinced Arafat, and his "government" sees peace with Israel as a threat to their longevity (power).
Now listen up, my Government, and Israel's government is, for some unknown reason, willing to overlook all that I personally think to be the truth in the interest of peace. If the US government believed how I believe (that the last think Arafat wants is peace) then maybe, MAYBE, you would have a reason to say we are "one sided" in Israel's favor. But I think calling my opinion "one sided" is like a kid that never does his homework, gets detention everyday, and talks back to his mother, saying his father is "one side" because he gets punished more than his sister who gets straight "A's" and is courteous to everyone she comes into contact with. No I'm not saying Israel is perfect . It's just an analogy that happens to mirror me and my sisters (who wasn't perfect either, she just seemed that way in comparison to me) childhood life. Sure I tried to call my father "unfair" and "one sided" but I was just a kid trying to score pity points. Prince Alwaleed and you are not 10 years old. You should be able to see who the troublemaker is. It's the side that loads up the truck of a car with explosives and drives it into a restaurant with the intention of killing as many innocent people, or non combatants if you prefer, as possible without regard to who may be in the establishment ... ON PURPOSE. There is NO moral equivalence between that and the Israeli military targeting the perpetrators of those heinous acts. Just like there is NO moral equivalence between the 9/11 terrorist attack and the US military killing the people that inflicted the mass murder.
But that is all MY opinion, and like I said you can call it "one sided" if you want to, but my Government is not of the same mind (I'm sorry to say). BUT, correct me if I'm wrong, my government has called for a halt to further settlements, condemned Israeli "aggression", and came out publicly for a Palestinian state that includes almost half of Jerusalem. What do they ask of the Palestinians ???? Just ONE thing, ALLOW ISRAEL TO EXIST in peace. You know, like don't teach the young ones that killing Jews is a good thing. That's all they ask. I can't for the life of me see how that can be construed as "one sided" for Israel. Am I missing something? Help me out.
What passes for reasoned logic in the Middle-East is beyond me. And what passes for logic from those who condemn Isreal and seek to belittle her supporters is simply amazing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.