Kiriakou’s general position is that the diplomatic cupboard is bare. He quotes Dennis Ross — special envoy for Arab-Israeli peace across the presidencies of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — to the effect that “there are no new ideas. All the ideas have been thought of. And all of them have been rejected by one or more parties.” [1]
He adds his own objection to reviving old ones: the situation on the ground changes constantly, so “you can’t take an idea that would have worked in 1990 and say, well, this was a good idea 1990, let’s just do it now.” [1]
The one live idea
Against that, Kiriakou flags a single proposal as worth watching, and is careful to attribute it rather than claim it. “There’s an idea being floated now. It’s been reported in the left-wing Israeli media that I think could possibly be the basis for future talks.” [2]
The shape of it is that Gaza “becomes semi-independent in that it agrees to disarm and it’s administered by Saudi Arabia.” There would be no military; “the Saudis would be the police force,” and “Gaza Palestinians would not be allowed to bear arms.” [2]
The second half is reconstruction. “The Saudis would build a port, an airport, an electrical grid, a sewage treatment facility and get the economy started.” The governing condition Kiriakou attaches is possession: “it would be Gaza for Palestinians.” [3]
Where it sits
Kiriakou frames the proposal inside his own preferred arithmetic, which is not two states but three. “There’s no connection between Gaza and the West Bank. They don’t even like each other,” he says, and concludes that “Gaza has to be some sort of independent entity,” while the West Bank “should be a free and internationally recognized Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital,” with the map worked out as it was in January 2001. [4]
His endorsement is deliberately weak. He says only that the Saudi arrangement “might be the basis for future talks” [3] — and, asked immediately afterwards whether matters have gone too far, answers: “Oh, I think it’s gone way, way too far on both sides.” [3]