Saudis tell Bush to moderate Israel support or face "Grave Consequences"!

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah have met amid Saudi warnings that Bush must moderate U.S. support for Israel or risk "grave consequences."

The two leaders met for nearly five hours on Thursday at Bush's ranch as world oil prices jumped on reports -- later denied by the Saudis -- that frustration over perceived U.S. favouritism toward Israel could drive Saudi Arabia to consider supporting an Iraqi suspension of oil exports.

The U.S. side declined to immediately characterise the talks, but a Saudi foreign policy adviser told reporters that Abdullah had come with a warning that U.S. relations with the Arab world would be endangered unless Washington persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to end the occupation of Palestinian areas.

"He (Abdullah) doesn't mince his words, like the president. ... If the U.S. doesn't do more to reduce the violence, there will be grave consequences for the U.S. and its interests," adviser Adel al-Jubeir said.

The New York Times on Thursday quoted a source close to Abdullah as saying there was talk within the Saudi royal family of using the "oil weapon" against the United States.

But Saudi officials said the country was not considering supporting an Iraqi suspension of oil exports to the United States and that it was committed to maintaining a supply-demand equilibrium and "fair" prices.

"Oil is not a weapon. Oil is not a tank. You cannot fire oil," al-Jubeir told reporters.

BEARS CONCERNS OF ANGRY ARAB PUBLIC

Bush met Abdullah at the door to his ranch house wearing a suit and silver, Western style belt buckle. Abdullah wore a traditional gold-trimmed, brown robe. After two hours of formal talks -- an hour longer than scheduled -- the two broke for a tour of the sprawling ranch.

Abdullah, who has assumed day-to-day control of the Saudi government because of King Fahd's illness, is the author of a Middle East peace plan accepted at a recent Arab summit. As an increasingly influential voice in the region, he came to the meeting bearing the concerns of Arab nations whose citizens are outraged at the Israeli crackdown on Palestinian areas.

Underscoring the importance of the meeting, Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice all took part. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met Abdullah on Wednesday.

Arab anger toward the United States has risen along with perceptions Washington is unabashedly pro-Israel.

Many Arabs were looking for the Saudi crown prince to press Bush for Israeli agreement to end its occupation of Palestinian territory, including the siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound, and accept a Palestinian state.

"If he (Sharon) is left to his own devices, he will drag the region over a cliff," al-Jubeir said.

Bush, on the other hand, wants Abdullah and other Arab leaders to refrain from inciting anti-Israeli violence, and to urge Arafat to make peace. He was expected to raise concerns about Saudi support for the Palestinian uprising.

Bush's conservative Republican base has strongly backed Israel, which also has a significant lobby in Congress and long-term Democratic support. Opinion polls show most Americans sympathise with the Jewish state.

Republican senators debating new energy legislation seized on the New York Times report to accuse Saudi Arabia of arrogance and "blackmail" for any suggestion of a link between oil supplies and foreign policy.

"We're looking at a situation in the Mideast today where clearly oil is a weapon," said Republican U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski, an advocate of opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

'NEITHER SIDE CAN MAKE THAT PLEDGE'

The main issue at the summit, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Youssef Ibrahim said, was: "Can Bush actually come out and say, 'We pledge to deliver Israel, if you pledge to deliver the Arab world'? I think neither side can make that pledge."

A starting point was Abdullah's proposal for normalised Arab relations with Israel in exchange for the return of land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Bush has sought to build on the plan which he views as a "new portal" to peace.

But Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said on Wednesday no peace talks could be held until Israel pulled out of Palestinian areas and ended Arafat's isolation.

The original U.S. aim for the meeting, to build support for Washington's campaign to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, has been overshadowed. But it would nonetheless be discussed, as would trade and economic issues, a senior U.S. official said.

U.S.-Saudi relations were strained by the September 11 attacks. The United States says 15 of the 19 men suspected of carrying out the hijackings were Saudis.

Saudi Arabia has been a longtime U.S. ally, allowing the United States to use its bases for attacks on Iraq during the Gulf War and for air patrols since then.

Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born exile blamed by the United States for the Sept. 11 attacks, has said closing the bases was a priority in his campaign to drive the United States from the region.

The Saudi Embassy has begun a television ad campaign in the United States promoting Saudi-U.S. ties and urging Americans to "Please keep your eyes, ears and especially your minds open."

I would love to think George Bush told the "Prince" to kiss his shiney white butt

I wouldn't put any money on it, though.

Betcha Powell got his lip balm out just in case George asked him to kiss the Prince's butt instead.

He did not have the staying power to win the war.

Guess you don't know the man.

Bush is a man who will look at all options and take the best one for the U.S. What makes you think that going in and continually demanding all other countries to do your bidding will win anything? A president has a lot of responsibility to lead the country SAFELY where he wants to take it. Safely often means putting your own wants aside to do what is best for the final outcome. Fortunately we don't have a president that handles all situations with his wants and his ego as top priority. This is a man.

If Bush is as oil crazy and concerned about his oil friends as you say - why didn't he stay in the oil business?

This is the same old junk the democrats drag up - Bush and oil friends. Do you really believe that junk? Maybe Bush is looking at the ecomony of the whole nation - which is what he is paid to do. If he didn't bail out Enron - don't think he will handle the Middle East to protect an oil friend.

Japan threatened us........Please be patient, you will likely get your wish, although you might not like the results. The pain will not only visit the saudis and the rest of the arab states, it will certainly visit us aswell. The economy will go bust, no jobs, no gas, no food on the table,...... I'm very far from being a peacenik, but war should only be a diplomatic tool of the last resort, like our very survival is at stake?

I don't know why in the world you people can't see that Bush is trying to avoid a Middle Eastern war that could easily get out of hand. How in the world do we get rid of Saddam and protect ourselves if we don't try and settle the uprising caused by Saddam to sidetrack us.

We will only help Israel by preventing them being attacked with nuclear weapons or by being overrun by a coalition of the Arab nations and Palestine. Just telling Israel to keep on fighting alone while Saddam incites the Arab countries against them to protect his own skin doesn't SOLVE anything.

Bush is getting a lot more intelligence information than we are, he has great experienced experts giving him advice and he is a strong leader not afraid of any of the terrorists or enemies.

I would suggest that people look at the situation and quit trying to make Bush into a Texan gunslinger instead of a U.S. President. We need a highly effective administration to get this solved for us.

I'm very far from being a peacenik, but war should only be a diplomatic tool of the last resort, like our very survival is at stake?

Do you really not think it is? I for one think it is. And oil IS the life-blood of our economy. If it comes to it, we either go to war over oil or give up everything--our way of life, our economy, our military superiority--completely.

In the long run, I think a war with fundamentalist Islam is inevitable. In fact, we've been in one for decades. It's going to heat up, big time, though, before it's over. I just want us to win it.

Grave Consequences?

I keep hearing all about the arab street, and how it endangers the "Moderate" arab dictators. This is utter BS, no dictator is afraid of his subjects. All dictators rule with an iron hand, and are willing to slaughter thousands of their subjects, to retain power. Only when they lose the will to kill, does the street have a chance. For example, the Soviet empire after they released Poland, or the Shah of Iran when he stopped killing his political enemies. On the other hand, we have the King of Jordan who slaughtered thousands of Palistinians in 79', the Saudi's who slaughtered the moslem militants who took over in Mecca, and in Eygpt the president hunted down, tortured, and executed the moslem brotherhood, and these are the so called "moderates". The only thing dictators can be said to fear, is the ambitions of their family and their generals, or a pissed off democracy.

So I ask what consequences? Are the arab dictators going to start funding terrorism? Oh wait, they already do. Are they going to send their incompetent military's, after Israel or the US(not likely)? Unlike in '73', an oil embargo is no longer a viable weapon, due to strategic oil reserves, and massive oil producer debt. So what can they do?

Before international outrage forced Bush to become involved with the Middle East, his Middle East policy consisted primarily of sending Ari Fleischer out to blame Bill Clinton. This Bush is pretty pathetic, is he not

So since you don't approve of Bush's policies towards the middle-east situation, what better policies do you propose?

If you can not accept that then you are not a realist I was 5 years old when WWII started, and when my home town was blown to bits. I was one of the lucky ones who got away unharmed, though many of my relatives were not so lucky. So, REALISM is indeed a reality to me. Thus having felt the full fury of war, I'm one not very eager to get into one lightly. But having survived WWII, I also have learned that there is a point when one have to kill to survive. But before I'm forced to kill another human being, I will do my outmost to prevent it. Certainly, I will not kill if someone steps on my ego, I might throw a few light zingers, but that will be all. Nobody wins in an all out war, one can only minimize the loss. If you ask me, should America go to war with the saudis if they cause severe damage to our economy, then I will say, with all our might. But I pray that the USA is on the high moral ground when it happens.

Please read my reply to sentryoveramerica. You maybe correct that islam will bring war to us, and one way that it can happen is if the islamic states uses oil as a weapon to destroy our economy. If the saudis do this, then America should fight them with all our might. I believe we will be in high moral grounds, and the country will be united in such a war. But the saudis are not stupid, at least I hope I'm correct in my assessment. The saudis know our capability(Desert Storm, Afghanistan) and President GWB. In fact, the saudis have already said that they will NOT use oil as a weapon, but we will have to wait and see. The islamist are not famous for keeping their words.

What's the angry Arab public going to do? Throw sand at us?

No,hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. Or strap bombs to their children for the purpose of killing other children. Or decapitate American reporters while they are still alive. Or.........

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.