Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israel Policy

HOUSTON, April 24 — Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is expected to tell President Bush in stark terms at their meeting on Thursday that the strategic relationship between their two countries will be threatened if Mr. Bush does not moderate his support for Israel's military policies, a person familiar with the Saudi's thinking said today.

In a bleak assessment, he said there was talk within the Saudi royal family and in Arab capitals of using the "oil weapon" against the United States, and demanding that the United States leave strategic military bases in the region.

He also warned of a general drift by Arab leaders toward the radical politics that have been building in the Arab street.

The Saudi message contained undeniable brinkmanship intended to put pressure on Mr. Bush to take a much larger political gamble by imposing a peace settlement on Israelis and Palestinians.

But the Saudi delegation also brought a strong sense of the alarm and crisis that have been heard in Arab capitals.

"It is a mistake to think that our people will not do what is necessary to survive," the person close to the crown prince said, "and if that means we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it. It's damned lonely in our part of the world, and we can no longer defend our relationship to our people."

Whatever the possibility of bluster, it is also clear that Abdullah represents not just Saudi Arabia but also the broader voice of the Arab world, symbolized by the peace plan he submitted and that was endorsed at an Arab summit meeting in March.

Those familiar with the prince's "talking points" said he would deliver a blunt message that Mr. Bush is perceived to have endorsed — despite his protests to the contrary — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's military incursion into the West Bank.

Abdullah believes Mr. Bush has lost credibility by failing to follow through on his demand two weeks ago that Mr. Sharon withdraw Israeli troops from the West Bank and end the sieges of Yasir Arafat's compound in Ramallah and of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

If those events occur and Mr. Bush makes a commitment "to go for peace" by convening an international conference, as his father did after the Persian Gulf war, to press for a final settlement and a Palestinian state, the Saudi view would change dramatically.

But those close to the Saudi delegation said there was no expectation that Mr. Bush is prepared to apply the pressure necessary to force such an outcome.

"The perception in the Middle East, from the far left to the far right, is that America is totally sponsoring Sharon — not Israel's policies but Sharon's policies — and anyone who tells you less is insulting your intelligence," the person familiar with Abdullah's thinking said.

Western analysts see the prince as a blunt Bedouin leader whose initiative is regarded by many Arabs as a gesture worthy of the late Egyptian leader Anwar el-Sadat, who flew to Jerusalem in 1973 to sue for peace with Menachem Begin. Abdullah's offer, now the Arab world's offer, calls for recognition of Israel and "normal relations" in return for a Palestinian state on lands Israel occupied in 1967.

The Saudi assessment was apparently being conveyed through several private channels.

On Tuesday President Bush's father had lunch with the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the kingdom's longtime ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Their specific message could not be learned, but in the familial setting, where Barbara Bush was also the hostess for Princess Haifa, Prince Bandar's wife, the strong strategic and personal ties of the Persian Gulf war that characterized Saudi-American relations a decade ago was a message in itself.

Abdullah, in a luncheon today with Vice President Dick Cheney, was to convey the seriousness with which he regards Thursday's meeting with President Bush as a "last chance" for constructive relations with the Arab world.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, also flew to Houston to join in last-minute discussions before the summit meeting. A senior official in Washington said Mr. Rumsfeld and General Myers were dispatched to brief the prince personally on the American accomplishments in Afghanistan and in the broader war on terrorism.

"The idea was, if he thought we were strong in Desert Storm, we're 10 times as strong today," one official said. "This was to give him some idea what Afghanistan demonstrated about our capabilities."

United States military commanders in the Persian Gulf region have been building up command centers and equipment depots in Qatar and Kuwait in recent months in anticipation of a possible breach with Riyadh.

Saudi officials assert that American presidents since Richard M. Nixon have been willing to speak more forcefully to Israeli leaders than the current president when American interests were at stake.

"If Bush freed Arafat and cleared Bethlehem, it would be a big victory, show a stiffening of spine," the person close to Abdullah said. "But incremental steps are no longer valid in these circumstances," meaning that Mr. Bush would have to follow up with a major push to fulfill the longstanding expectation of the Palestinians for statehood.

The mood in the Saudi camp was that of gloom and anxiety in private even as Saudi and American officials went ahead with preparations for a warm public encounter with the Bush family.

On Friday, after his meeting with President Bush at his home in Crawford, Abdullah is to take a long train ride to College Station, the central Texas town where the former President Bush will be host at his presidential library. On Saturday, Saudi's Arabia's state oil company is gathering the luminaries of the international energy industry to dine with Abdullah and his party.

But the person close to the prince said that if the summit talks went badly, Abdullah might not complete his stay in Texas. Instead, he might return directly to Riyadh and call for a summit meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to report to its 44 leaders, who represent 1.2 billion Muslims.

"He wants to say, `I looked the president of the U.S. in the eye and have to report that I failed,' " this person said. His message to the Arabs will be, "Take the responsibility in your own hands, my conscience is clear, before history, God, religion, country and friends."

The person close to Abdullah pointed out that Saudi Arabia's recent assurances that it would use its surplus oil-producing capacity to blunt the effects of Saddam Hussein's 30-day suspension of Iraqi oil exports could quickly change.

That Saudi pledge "was based on a certain set of assumptions, but if you change the assumptions, all bets are off," he said. "We would no longer say what Saddam said was an empty threat, because there come desperate times when you give the unthinkable a chance."

Abdullah is reported to be bitter over the White House's assertion that the president is taking a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he wants to evaluate in person whether Mr. Bush understands how his actions are being perceived in the Arab world.

"This is not a mistake or a policy gaffe," the person close to Abdullah said, referring to Mr. Bush's approach. "He made a strategic, conscious decision to go with Sharon, so your national interest is no longer our national interest; now we don't have joint national interests. What it means is that you go your way and we will go ours, economically, militarily and politically — and the antiterror coalition would collapse in the process."

Why can't we insist that Sharon withdraw, that Palestine become an autonomous state with NO occupation or Israeli settlers? What is wrong with that? Israeli should not have made those incursions. The Palestinians are hopelessly desperate. We need allies when we go after Saddam. We need oil to go after Saddam. We don't need to kiss Saudi behinds, but we need the middle east fixed and fixed soon.

Screw the Saudis. Dubya needs to tell them that their sorry, corrupt rear ends wouldn't be around these days if not for the good will of the United States and the blood and treasure we sacrificed in their behalf to keep them out of the clutches of Saddam Hussein. If they don't like the message, then they can drink their oil while the radicals overthrow their insignificant little sheikdom because the US will be opening up our Gulf and ANWR resources as the extremists they've coddled for so long take their heads to the chopping block.

If anybody watched the beginning of Hannity and Colmes tonite, when Newt Gingrich was on, I believe Newt Gingrich said it best. Something to the effect of, "Bush needs to tell the prince:

1) We're disappointed in the fact that 14 of 19 hijackers(9/11) were from Saudi Arabia.

2) We're disappoined that Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia.

3) We're disppointed that your country had a telethon to support the suicide bombers.

4) Are you going to disappoint us yet again, by not supporting our replacing Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq?

It is becoming more and more apparent that the Islamic world is now our number one enemy.

OOOOOO....OOOOOO....

The Saudi princes are all gonna RUPTURE?? Ouch. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of Wahhabist, UBL mini-me's.

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is expected to tell President Bush in stark terms at their meeting on Thursday that the strategic relationship between their two countries will be threatened if Mr. Bush does not moderate his support for Israel's military policies, a person familiar with the Saudi's thinking said today.

Arab governments have no moral authority. Sponsoring terrorism and inciting violence does not put them in a position to lecture us. I'm sure Bush will shoot right back at Abdullah with, "If you don't quit supporting terror, we'll quit supporting your regime."

Israel made those incursions to arrest terroroists, which Arafat had been promising to do for 18 months. They were just helping him.

We can ask and we can even demand, but Israel is a sovereign nation, just like we are.

By the way, don't let the article put you in a tizzy. I imagine it is hype from one group or another and has little to do with the truth.

You know, as far as I am concerned this doesn't even qualify as news. He is "expected" to tell Bush this? By WHOM? Note that there is the usual unnamed source. I think I will start making up my own news, just like the Times.

Ediitors were expected to tell Patrick Tyler that his services as a reporter were sadly lalcking and no longer required, a person familiar with the New York Times's management said today.

Haahaha! :)

The Israel haters have been posting this and similar sentiments recently.....

........the strange thing is that it is Arabs who are always issuing "warnings" to the US.

How many here are kindly disposed to being constantly warned by the Arabs? Do what they say or 9/11 will be just a taste.

On Saturday, Saudi's Arabia's state oil company is gathering the luminaries of the international energy industry to dine with Abdullah and his party.

The monarchist "Prince" Abdullah meets with GW, then plays the "oil card" by enlisting oil company big wigs to do his bidding, which is his countries Islamic cause, i.e., end the Israeli fight against the terrorist bombers. The oil company "leaders" will of course do his bidding, for money of course, and push GW and other Congressional leaders to "compromise" and stop Israel.

President Bush, in your own words, you are either against the terrorist, or you are with them.
Just say no to oil money and yes to honor, integrity, and the right for peaceful nations to pursue terrorists to the lands that harbor them.

All is not what it seems. Rather than getting angry at the Saudis prematurely, one could ask what the Times is up to with this story, and who planted it.

It's exactly what it seems. Some high ranking Saudi, maybe their ambassador to the U.S., told the Times most of this stuff in order to try to intimidate the President. You can complain about the New York Times, but compared to, say, the London Guardian or London Independent, their reporting is professional. The Saudi's are trying to intimidate us, not the New York Times.

Before too long, the Saudi government is likely to be overthrown no matter what happens on this diplomatic front.

"Note that there is the usual unnamed source."

Hey, this "Unnamed Source" must ne a pretty credible guy...all the best news publications quote him all the time!

BTW...has anyboy seen that show called "To be Announced"? It's on almost every channel, but I always miss it....

Cicero: You must recall your history! The New York Times owners are immigrant German Jews, the same sort who thought that Hitler was a fanatic, but manageable. Historically, this class wanted little to do with and actually looked down on the Yiddish population of Mittle-Europe

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.