Stardate 20020328.1029

(On Screen): The Arabs meeting in Beirut have approved the Saudi peace proposal. This article characterizes it as "far-reaching", and while that is true, there isn't anything new in it. It turns out to be nothing more than a rehash of old positions. The actual text of the proposal is given here. There are some interesting aspects to it.

First, it requires a complete withdrawal from all territories occupied in 1967. That includes the Golan Heights. Second, Israel has to give in to the "right of return", which is the one non-negotiable position. Israel will never accede to that as long as it exists.

It also includes this interesting clause:

The Council... ...assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

I'm not really clear on what that means. It's bizarre. It's quite difficult to say, in fact, because the word patriation isn't in the dictionary. What I think it means is that none of the Arab nations will accept any obligation to take Palestinians into their nations. In other words, Israel has to accept every Palestinian who wants to move into Israel's pre-1967 borders, but no Arab nation has to accept any Palestinians at all, unless they want to.

This proposal is empty and meaningless. It is old wine in new bottles; it is stated in terms which Israel can never accept. While I think that the Arabs would love to get this deal, I don't think any of them actually think it will happen.

In other news, they expressed measured solidarity with Iraq. They "stress our total rejection of any attack on Iraq". It is not, however, clear just what that might mean in concrete terms if the US were to go ahead and invade. I suspect when it really came down to it, it would probably mostly mean that they would refuse to let their territories be used by us as staging grounds.

The Iraqis are playing a moderately good game now. They recognize that our efforts to attack them will be eased substantially if we have help from a neighbor, and that Kuwait is the biggest danger in that regard. So they're making particular nice to Kuwait, trying to become buddies.

If Kuwait were to really take this seriously and refuse to let us use their territory, that would be a problem. It isn't insuperable, but it would be a problem. It would mean that the invasion would have to be amphibious from the Persian Gulf directly onto Iraqi territory, and that the earliest strategic objective would be capture of the port and airport at Basrah. Once that took place, however, it would no longer matter.

I'm not too concerned, however. It is rumored that there is a quiet buildup of American forces going on in Kuwait now. I think Kuwait is pretty much committed, if for no other reason than because they have little choice. Also, despite embracing the Iraqi representatives in Beirut, I suspect that few tears will be shed in Kuwait city if Saddam Hussein is deposed.

Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to assume that Iraq is frozen into immobility. There are indications that they may be trying to work for a spoiling war against Israel as a way of distracting us, for instance.

These things indicate why it is that counsel of patience may be misguided. If we give Iraq too much time, it may be able to arrange a great deal of mischief against us. We should not attack before we're ready, but we also shouldn't delay if we're truly determined to go to war against them.