Search the archive.

(CHRISTIAN BRITSCHGI is an associate editor at Reason. https://reason.com/2021/07/12/billionaires-spending-their-own-money-to-go-to-space-has-progressives-howling-for-a-wealth-tax/ , 7-12)

The idea of billionaires launching themselves into space on their own rockets has provoked apoplexy from some progressives, who view the spectacle as an ostentatious display of economic inequality that must be fixed with a wealth tax. Witness the response to Virgin Galactic founder Richard Branson's successful journey to the edge of space yesterday on his company's Unity spaceship. The flight—which carried Branson and five other crew members more than 50 miles above the Earth's surface—represents an important milestone for the nascent private space tourism industry. But several commentators were only concerned with what the British billionaire's money could have funded instead. On Twitter, Mother Jones' Clara Jeffery declared it an "advertisement for a wealth tax": Journalist Teddy Schleifer said on CNN that the press should cool its jets when covering billionaires' space travels, saying that "it's impossible to talk about the billionaire's success without talking about the system that creates this in the first place." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) struck a familiar dyspeptic note: Here on Earth, in the richest country on the planet, half our people live paycheck to paycheck, people are struggling to feed themselves, struggling to see a doctor — but hey, the richest guys in the world are off in outer space! Yes. It's time to tax the billionaires. Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) asked, a few days before Branson's launch, whether that money could be spent on health care and education rather than "space travel fantasies." Should billionaires play out their space travel fantasies, or should we invest in schooling, provide healthcare, and create prosperity for everyone? Khanna doesn't see such a stark trade-off with the government's own resources, given his co-sponsorship of the "Endless Frontiers Act," the initial version of which would have given $100 billion to the National Science Foundation to research such sci-fi ideas as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Surely that money could be spent on health care too? And Khanna is a member of Congress' "NASA Caucus," so he isn't objecting to spending money on space exploration per se. In any case, billionaire-backed space companies—which includes not just Branson's Virgin Galactic but also Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Elon Musk's SpaceX—can help to eliminate wasteful space spending. That's certainly the case with SpaceX. Back in May 2020, the company's Crew Dragon vehicle ferried NASA astronauts to the International Space Station from American soil for the first time since 2011, when the accident-prone Space Shuttle was retired. To develop and launch Crew Dragon, SpaceX received a $2.6 billion contract from NASA through the agency's Commercial Crew Program. In comparison, the Constellation program run directly by NASA—which had a similar goal of developing a launch system for putting astronauts in low-earth orbit—was estimated to cost closer to $34.5 billion. SpaceX was "effectively doing what the Constellation Program was doing with about the same amount of money, total, that they were burning in a single month," NASA engineer Mike Horkachuck told ArsTechnica's Eric Berger. The billionaire class is going to space decades after government did it first, using surplus resources that should have gone to finance that government but didn't, and then using that dubious achievement as proof that they are more efficient than government. — Anand Giridharadas @ The.Ink (@AnandWrites) July 12, 2021 In time, the competition between these various private ventures will put yet more downward pressure on prices while spurring the development of new, better space technology—helping the government's space efforts as well as the private sector's. Even if you aren't convinced of the value of space travel, given that we've yet to reach a utopia free of poverty, disease, and war here on Earth, there's something to be said for a private space industry soaking up the legions of engineers and other aerospace professionals who might otherwise be spending their careers designing faster-flying missiles for traditional military contractors.

(University of New South Wales, , 3-19)

Robotic mining that can provide water and fuel is the key to developing a colony on the red planet within the next 30 years. Mars will be colonized by humans by the year 2050, as long as autonomous mining processes quickly become more commercially viable. That’s the view of Professor Serkan Saydam from UNSW Sydney in the wake of the amazing landing on Mars by NASA’s Perseverance rover. Perseverance is expected to provide answers about whether forms of life ever existed on the red planet, but it is also designed to help address the challenges of future human expeditions there. Professor Saydam, from the School of Mineral Energy Resources Engineering, says the main focus in terms of creating a colony on Mars is finding water – and being able to extract it and process it using robots before humans land. “Everything is all about water,” Prof. Saydam says. “You use water as a life support, plus also being able to separate out the hydrogen to use as an energy source. “The process for having humans on Mars will be to set up operations, go there and produce water with robots first, and then be able to extract the hydrogen to make the energy ready before people arrive. “Innovation in robotics and autonomous systems are clearly important so that we have the water ready and the hydrogen separated and ready for when human beings land. “At the moment, we don’t have ability to do it. There are significant research efforts, specifically here at UNSW under ACSER (Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research), about the best way to do it, but there is no consensus yet. It also depends on how many people we expect to be living on Mars. Is it five, or 5000, or 50,000, or even more?” M Entrepreneur Elon Musk has claimed he’s confident there will be a city of 1 million on Mars by 2050, transported there by 1000 Starships proposed by his SpaceX venture, with plans for up to three rocket launches per day. Prof. Saydam says that may be unrealistic in the specific timeframe, but admits that demand for travel and a potential colonization of Mars is what’s needed to drive the technological developments required. “I think the technology is ready and we already have the knowledge, but the main problem is having the focus,” says Prof. Saydam, who is organizing an International Future Mining Conference in December 2021 that will feature former NASA astronaut Pamela Melroy and Honeybee Robotics vice-president Kris Zacny. “It’s a bigger question: ‘Why don’t we do that already on earth? Why are we still using human beings for physical work in mining here?’ We have huge experience in mining, but still heavily depend on humans. “One issue is that demand is not there. For companies to get involved in developing products (for Mars missions), they need to be able to produce minerals or something that can be used for manufacturing goods and then sell it. “At the moment, everything is just a cost and there is no revenue for companies.” However, that could be starting to change. United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing who are heavily invested in the rockets used to launch spaceships, has publicly announced they will pay $500 per kilogram for fuel – derived from water – supplied on the moon. That rises to $3000 per kilogram if the fuel is available in a low-earth orbit. “That immediately creates a market,” Prof. Saydam says. “Plus, if Elon Musk does what he says and puts people on the surface of Mars in 20 years, then that also creates a market. “I believe a colony on Mars is going to happen, but between 2040 and 2050 is more feasible. This could be shortened depending on the technological advances that can reduce the costs or from stronger motivation.

What happens when nearly 20,000 tons of warships nearly collide? Navy investigators are determining precisely that question after a destroyer and amphibious warfare vessel almost “traded paint” in the congested San Diego Bay. A video of what happened, dubbed “warship chicken” by local news, showed a harrowing encounter in which the USS Harpers Ferry and USS Momsen avoided a devastating collision with seconds to spare.

The near-collision is the latest in a string of incidents for the Navy. In 2015, the destroyers USS John McCain and the USS Fitzgerald both experienced deadly and avoidable collisions that cost the lives of a multitude of sailors. Then, in 2020, the $1.2 billion USS Bonhomme Richard was destroyed after fire engulfed the ship for four days in the San Diego Bay. And last year, the USS Connecticut — an indispensable fast-attack submarine — hit a seamount, potentially resulting in the loss of the boat.

The biggest challenge to the military's readiness is sequestration, military leaders said on Capitol Hill today. Sequestration is a provision of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that imposes across-the-board spending cuts if Congress and the White House cannot agree on more targeted cuts aimed at reducing the budget deficit.

The uncertain and restrictive budget environment is forcing the Army to make tough choices, the vice chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Daniel B. Allyn, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Allyn and his counterparts from the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps spoke at a hearing on the current state of readiness of U.S. forces. "We must have … predictable and sustained funding to deliver the readiness that our combatant commanders require to meet the missions that continue to emerge," Allyn said.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) appeared to suggest on Friday that Congress was headed toward a government shutdown this fall amid a contentious appropriations fight that has seen the House and Senate write and pass funding bills at different spending levels.

Coons's comment came at the end of a panel discussion at this year's Aspen Security Forum alongside Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jim Risch (R-ID) as the trio debated how to address Sen. Tommy Tuberville's (R-AL) hold on military promotions in protest of the Pentagon's abortion policy. The Delaware senator, who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, argued that while congressional antics may cause concern, there are bipartisan coalitions in the House and Senate that are capable of solving tough problems.

With only two weeks before Congress’ August recess and a lot left to accomplish, let’s check in on the three big priorities that the House and Senate want to get done — and who is standing in their way.

Federal Aviation Administration: This agency’s reauthorization is set to hit the House floor this week — but as Huddle first reported Thursday, there are some lingering question marks on the GOP side of the aisle. Chief among those is the debate over whether to allocate more space for long-haul flights at Reagan National Airport.

The House and Senate are set for a collision course when it comes to appropriations this year, and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is in the middle of it, having to please the far-right fringe of his conference while also ensuring the government is funded before the Sept. 30 deadline. Senate appropriators appeared at-odds over the spending caps set in the debt ceiling deal, but now the House is marking their appropriations bills below those caps—prompting more concerns. But, there is not much else McCarthy is able to do, as he attempts to meet the demands of some of the most conservative members of his caucus who want to see the government significantly slash spending.

Earlier in July, 21 Republicans signed onto a letter threatening to vote against appropriations bills if they didn’t meet a list of their demands. Included in that list was all appropriations measures enacted at fiscal 2022 levels “without the use of reallocated rescissions to increase discretionary spending above that top-line.” This places the House up against the Senate, who are displeased with the caps set in the debt ceiling bill, and have started marking-up appropriations bills above those caps. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-WA), announced her and ranking member Susan Collins's (R-ME) deal to add $8 billion for defense, and $5.7 billion for nondefense emergency funds during a committee markup last week. “Let's be clear: Emergency spending does not break the debt limit agreement," Collins said. "The law allows for funding to be designated as an emergency and for other adjustments, for program integrity, wildfires suppression, and disaster relief funding."

National security adviser Jake Sullivan said Sunday the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is “never getting to the president’s desk.”

“What you’ve seen from an extreme group of Republicans is to put forward a set of amendments that try to mix domestic social debates with … the security needs of our nation,” Sullivan told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of The Union.”

House Republican leaders working to write and pass the spending bills that fund the government face a major hurdle: Their own party — especially their most powerful, arch-conservative faction — has spent the last decade assailing federal spending and, with growing frequency, casting vote after vote against it.

G.O.P. members of the House have supported spending bills less than half the time over the last dozen years, according to a New York Times analysis of such votes since 2011. Hard-right lawmakers associated with the Freedom Caucus, which has been the most outspoken about slashing spending, have voted in favor of government funding bills less than 20 percent of the time. And a smaller bloc of ultraconservative members who have threatened to blockade the House floor if their priorities are not met has almost always voted against appropriations bills — in an average of 93 percent of cases.

If you were only familiar with the main story over the past few weeks and didn't know the operational plans or intelligence reports, you could unequivocally conclude that Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of knocking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. The prime minister has based a long career around this issue; he is identified with it more than any other leader and declared it one of his four major goals when his current term began. But these are empty words.

The head of the National Security Council, Tzachi Hanegbi, predicted just before he took office that Netanyahu's main task this term would be to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. In an interview with Channel 12’s Friday night news program, he said: “If there's anything that could become acute and critical in the coming months, it’s Iran’s nuclear program. If the negotiations don’t end with an agreement and the United States doesn't take independent action, Prime Minister Netanyahu – and I believe this fire has been burning in him for 25 years – will take action to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

To be sure, Israel has in the past carried out relatively limited operations against Iran—such as raids on Iranian allies in Syria and nuclear sabotage—and may continue to do so in the future. But to what extent should we believe Tel Aviv is truly ready and willing to launch a strike on Iran because of advances in the Iranian nuclear program, knowing full well that this is likely to push the two countries and their allies into war? The political and military constraints on Israeli decision-makers suggests such a military showdown is highly unlikely.

To speak of an imminent and undisguised IDF strike deep inside Iranian territory is to overlook a long-established norm that has for decades governed U.S.-Israel relations: Israel cannot simply ignore the wishes and concerns of its chief patron, especially when core U.S. foreign policy priorities are at stake.

The Middle East is in once again in a state of dramatic flux. The turbulent, post-2011 era of civil wars, adventurism, and proxy rivalries appears to have peaked. Regional insurgent and terrorist groups, namely the Islamic State, have been severely degraded. The strength of transnational political Islam has faded as well and, with the consolidation of power by President Kais Saied in Tunisia, so too has the prospect of democracy taking root and spreading. Meanwhile, the region’s long-standing external hegemon, the United States, has ended its “forever wars,” abandoning its predilection for ambitious, transformative projects in favor of an approach that largely accepts the status quo as it shifts its attention to Asia and, more recently, the war in Ukraine. Previously interventionist Arab states have largely forsaken military means for backroom dealmaking, economic ties, and soft power diplomacy.

A conventional view of this dynamism, especially the trends in de-escalation, posits that developments in Washington, DC, are the underlying catalysts behind it all. The United States is disengaging from the Middle East, the argument goes, and is seen as an unreliable guarantor with a long list of deficiencies. With its unpredictable electoral cycle and its general domestic disarray, Arab partners have long viewed the United States as a fickle and demanding ally. It has imposed irritating conditions on arms sales, courted troublesome nonstate groups such as the Houthis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and naively negotiated with Iran while being slow to defend its Arab partners against Iranian proxy and missile attacks. It is seen as making unreasonable, with-us-or-against-us demands in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while ignoring the hypocrisy of its own interventions in the Middle East.

“CIA does not know Israel’s near term plans and intentions,” the report adds, speculating that “Netanyahu probably calculates Israel will need to strike Iran to deter its nuclear program and faces a declining military capability to set back Iran’s enrichment program.”

That the U.S.’s premier intelligence service indicated it had no idea how seriously to take Israel’s increasingly bombastic threats to Tehran means that, in all likelihood, neither does the White House. But despite this lack of clarity, Biden has not opposed a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran — and his national security adviser recently hinted at blessing it.

Early this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a mock wartime meeting of his security cabinet in a bunker. Communities in northern Israel are preparing shelters for a long-term conflict. And the military is working overtime on a new laser system to intercept rockets.

Their focus is Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

Israel has had military confrontations with Iran’s proxies, Hizballah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. Jerusalem has been determined not to allow the emergence of a Lebanese situation in Syria, where missiles threaten the Jewish state. Therefore, starting as early as 2013, Israel began to attack Iranian-linked targets in Syria to prevent the entrenchment of Iran and its proxy militias in Syria. These attacks also serve to destroy Iranian-made missiles shipped to Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as components aimed at improving their accuracy.

The IDF has mostly kept a low-profile approach, choosing not to publicize its operations. By January 2019, thousands of targets were hit, according to then Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot.[20] Israel was successful in partly removing the Iranian supported militias from its immediate border, although Iran continues to deploy its forces and weapons in Syria as well as at the Iraqi-Syrian border crossings. It also retaliates from time to time, even in small measure, just to make a point. Despite relentless Israeli attacks, Iran has shown determination to continue with its projects, even though it faces domestic problems as a result of US sanctions, dwindling oil revenues, street protests a harsh economic reality and recently a Covid-19 crisis.

Global warming will do the Middle East no favors. Evidence abounds it will be the region that climate change will hit hardest. Summer temperatures across the region are expected to increase more than twice the global average. Prolonged heat waves, desertification, and droughts will make parts of the Middle East and North Africa uninhabitable. Where Middle Easterners will still be able to live, climate change may fuel violent competition over diminishing resources. Even though some degree of warming is inevitable, governments in the region and their international partners have done little to integrate climate change to their strategies to mitigate instability and conflict. Instead, they should brace themselves for a Middle East in which warming intensifies unrest, weakens state capacity, and provokes resource conflicts.

Civil Unrest and Armed Violence Spikes

But if we look at the rest of the government it it doesn't have the same appeal first of all you have the two ultra-orthodox parties the ultra-orthodox parties of course it wouldn't hurt them if there was peace with Saudi Arabia but it's certainly not something that animates them it's not certainly not something which animates their followers not something that's electorally interesting for them um so they really you know are not particularly interested in it and the two uh uh religious scientists parties the National Religious party and Ultima you did respectively um uh small church and being careers party for them um again I don't think they would be against it but the price advice that could be paid the you know freezing of settlements the stopping of uh new settlement housing starts uh perhaps taking a harder line against uh settlers who feel aggrieved about the fact that there are terrorist attacks happening regularly um these are what animates them far more uncertain what animates their base um you know these are hard-line politicians and you know settlers are very much their base so if it if there was a if there was a necessary quid pro quo um that Saudi normalization would come in exchange for something in Judea and Samaria uh they certainly choose Judean Samara over Saudi normalization so the Americans are very much banking on Netanyahu saying what you know meaning what he said at the beginning when he said he's the one with the hands on the steering wheel he's the one that's running the show and so this pressure is really directed at Netanyahu more than uh the other parts of his uh Coalition but he still needs to maintain a a stable Coalition and we've spoken before how it's almost impossible to bring down a coalition now the budget's been passed for a year and a half till the end of 2024 but we have seen the threat and it still remains that bengware perhaps even smart rich in the future could decide not to vote with the government could decide if Netanyahu takes a particular decision it doesn't like not to vote with the government and that could delay uh or even you know push off legislation that this government and especially Netanyahu or someone in the ruling party they could uh would like to push forward so while there's no real threat for bringing down this government um there are still there are still challenges and and problems that uh that Netanyahu could face so he's really trying to you know uh keep that line to try and satisfy the Americans um but also trying to pacify his more extremist elements uh within his government um netanyahua was very much in the headlines personally this week because there was a fascinating um uh new chapter to his ongoing legal uh issues where we had Anna Milton uh the famous Hollywood film producer it's ready film producer who actually gave testimony from a hotel in Brighton on the south of the UK I believe health reasons were suggested why he couldn't come to Israel to give testimony so it was given by video by Zoom or whatever it was and Sarah Netanyahu went as a proxy for her husband uh to sort of face uh Milton in this room where they set up this video conferencing what why this was important first of all because Milton is at the center of at least one of the cases against Netanyahu that Netanyahu accepted give some friends and then um did a worth hundreds I think it was hundreds of thousands of dollars cigars champagne jewelry etc etc and uh there was a quid pro quo to get better uh coverage to help Milton uh perhaps get an extended Visa perhaps to help Milton if he returned to Israel to pay less taxes there's all these accusations that are out there so everyone was watching the scenes uh this week of this sort of bizarre stage of the Court proceedings and what the prosecution are trying to show is that there was a quid pro quo or the defense that's in your defense laws we're trying to say is this was a real solid and a real friendship between Milton and Netanyahu the gifts were given uh out of friendship not because he expected anything from it interestingly enough there was a question well if this was a friendship was there ever ever anything given on the other way we're talking about hundreds of thousands of goods and presents given from Milton to the ever give a single gift to Milton and the answer was of course no um so it remains to be seen how conclusive or interesting or uh you know how much of an effector has on the case but certainly uh this came out uh uh this week comets which came out only today as well which also relating to the netting your case former police chief Ronnie alsafe uh came out in an interview and said that we in the police system expected Netanyahu to resign just as Alma had when he was indicted uh on criminal offenses uh and we never expected him to continue in fact we even expected the liquid to throw him out and one can imagine that this was jumped upon by um you know the Netanyahu surrounding figures ministers in the code even other men members of the government they said that you know it's clear by al-shek's comments which you know I I wouldn't say I are completely clear but I understand why the government uh ministers decided to jump on it they said well I'll Shake's comments uh basically say what we've always suspected that there was an attempt at a coup uh to try and overturn the will of the people and to try and get Netanyahu out by other means uh so it'll be interested to see how that plays out finally on the government reform it was very interesting um information uh released tonight sort of behind the scenes of what's going to happen with the government forum and it seems that there's going to be some major steps taken down uh from the ladder that was built at the beginning of the year with this new government what appears to be happening is that they're going to pass uh by the end of this uh session the summer session by the end of July a more diluted version of reasonable the reasonable nurse Clause as we spoke before there's two elements to that where there are law is reasonable or not or with an appointment was reasonable or not and as we know uh uh area Dairy that either the chef's party um was basically ordered to remove himself from the government um because it wasn't not reasonable that he would be a minister because it is uh past crimes and because of the plea bargain that he made that was going to be his route back in to get rid of that reasonable and explosive now appears that the reasonableness clause against appointments is not going to be part of the new law and it seems that Aria Dairy is almost accepted that he's not going to find his way back into the government and he's even appointed a new health Minister and perhaps interior minister to take uh the positions that she held so be interesting to see the most controversial part of the um the uh judicial reform was the override clause which basically meant that the uh knesset could re-legislate anything that the Supreme Court uh basically uh struck struck off uh and with a certain majority it was suggested a basic majority of 61 can override that Supreme Court um uh decision and one can imagine that's something the most controversial and that's certainly the ones that the um the U.S were most concerned about and other uh friends and allies around the world and it seems that that is now going to be taken completely off the table and some of the other more milder elements um are going to be um legislated uh later in the year in the after the uh summer holiday and the uh the Jewish holidays when they when the cancer returns in in October and there's a talk of that the composition of the judicial appointments committee is going to be very different the judges are going to be thrown off that committee and it's going to be uh five this is what's been suggested it's going to be former Justice Minister Friedman's uh compromise which is going to be five members of the Coalition five members of the opposition and so neither side have a veto and there'll be uh equal amounts it's unclear what happened if there's a tie but what it does show is that there'll be a need to negotiate and compromise between Coalition and opposition a far cry from giving the government uh the Coalition a complete pretty much veto which was being talked about from the beginning so quite quite a come down from some of the more extreme positions that were talked about in the judicial reform and while we are hearing that there's going to be new protests and you add a protest at the end of the day uh it seems that uh it's gonna you know the whole process is going to be much milder and much closer to what was being talked about by the two sides so uh lots of different things going on and with that I'm happy to answer any questions on these or any other issues all right thank you so much.

Meanwhile, in an Israel consumed with its internal problems, the country’s foreign policy seems to have adopted the old Saudi approach of following rather than leading. On Netanyahu’s top two foreign policy priorities, Israel sits on the sidelines as the United States negotiates directly with Saudi Arabia about normalization and indirectly with Iran about nuclear issues.

Netanyahu’s difficult relationship with Biden looms over all this diplomacy. The United States has continued to speak out loudly about Israeli practices in the West Bank, especially settlement activities and the importance of preserving the long-term objective of a two-state solution, however fanciful a notion this has come to seem. The aggressive drive for “judicial reform” by far-right members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition has also led to vocal pushback from the administration and large parts of the U.S. Jewish community. This growing rift with Israel has led Biden to withhold an invitation to Netanyahu to visit Washington—an extraordinary development, given the historically very close U.S.-Israeli alliance.

It is a grand and progressive vision worthy of the utmost efforts. But it is receding in plain sight due to an upsurge of Palestinian and Jewish settler violence in the West Bank and the expansion of Israel’s settlements there.

These developments greatly undermine the chances of a two-state solution, which is one of Saudi Arabia’s unwavering conditions for a historic rapprochement with Israel.

In public, the Saudis continue to condition normalisation on the advancement of tangible steps towards an Israeli-Palestinian peace. “Israel has a lot of potential and normalisation can do wonders, not just for Israelis and Palestinians, but there’s potential for trade and cultural exchanges and exchanges with Israel on multiple fronts,” Fahad Nazer, spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington said recently. “But for that to happen, for the kingdom to take that step, we need that core [Israeli-Palestinian] dispute to be resolved.”

The traditional obligations of Arab leadership common to the generation of MBS’s father King Salman conditioned Arab normalisation with Israel on peace with the Palestinians. The Abraham Accords broke that paradigm and proved that Israeli technology and advanced innovation were a more attractive prospect for the young Gulf elites, and it is thought that younger Saudi elite circles concur. Based on this reading, MBS’s programme of Saudi “modernisation” (a programme which critics are quick to point out does not include much in the way of an improvement in the Kingdom’s human rights) makes him unlikely to sacrifice a productive relationship on the altar of Palestinian solidarity. However, residual affinity to the Palestinian cause remains, and Saudi’s leadership status likely requires at least some Israeli gesture or declaration towards the Palestinians as part of a normalisation deal.