Hats off to Saudi King Abdullah

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/arab-leaders-decline-to-snub-address-by-israeli-pr/

Maybe I will live long enough to see peace in the Middle East after all.

[Anonymous]

oops, meant to copy the first paragraph:

"A U.N. conference on religious tolerance broke new ground Wednesday when a half-dozen Arab leaders - including Saudi King Abdullah for the first time ever - stayed in their seats while an Israeli president spoke. "

[Anonymous]

Now if only the Israelis would stop putting the Palestinians into what amounts to ghettos... peace could really occur

[Anonymous]

Why do the Saudis think that they can speak for the Palestinians?
There will be peace when Israel respects human rights, and treats everyone as if they were a Jew.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone say the Saudis were speaking for the Palestinians. Op is pointing out that the Saudis were civil to the Israelis - for the first time. Until everyone can be civil with each other we have no hope of peace. And there is plenty of uncivility on the Plalestinian and Israeli side to go around - but I don't think that was the point.

Maybe King Abdullah took Obama's message that we need to speak to our enemies to heart?

[Anonymous]

It is easy to be civil when you're not the one being screwed.

[Anonymous]

I made the second point above, and what I meant is that is is great that the Saudi king was civil to the Israelis, but now to rude conflict now the Israelis need to be civil to the Palestinians... I'd use guns if my kids were starving, no medications, and no future to hope for.

[jsteele]

Its ironic that King Abdullah would play a leadership role in a conference about religious tolerance given the complete lack of such tolerance in his own country. Not only are other religions not tolerated, but even failing to adhere strictly enough to Islam can result in punishment. Not to mention how the Kingdom regards Shia Muslims.

Yes, sitting in a room and listening to an Israeli leader praise your own peace plan is progress, such as it is. But we really should be expecting more. If the King wants to show tolerance, why doesn't he let women drive? Now, that would be revolutionary.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Its ironic that King Abdullah would play a leadership role in a conference about religious tolerance given the complete lack of such tolerance in his own country. Not only are other religions not tolerated, but even failing to adhere strictly enough to Islam can result in punishment. Not to mention how the Kingdom regards Shia Muslims.

Yes, sitting in a room and listening to an Israeli leader praise your own peace plan is progress, such as it is. But we really should be expecting more. If the King wants to show tolerance, why doesn't he let women drive? Now, that would be revolutionary.

Amen. No irony intended.

[Anonymous]

The Saudi government, and governments throughout the region, have been increasingly taking these steps to show greater tolerance, greater voice (for example with the Saudis having elections only recently...but only to elect one sixth of the seats of a parliament that has minimal powers), more accountable governments. They aren't entirely superficial but the ARE entirely geared toward appearing more accountable and inclusive without taking the necessary and really difficult steps toward real democracy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Its ironic that King Abdullah would play a leadership role in a conference about religious tolerance given the complete lack of such tolerance in his own country. Not only are other religions not tolerated, but even failing to adhere strictly enough to Islam can result in punishment. Not to mention how the Kingdom regards Shia Muslims.

Yes, sitting in a room and listening to an Israeli leader praise your own peace plan is progress, such as it is. But we really should be expecting more. If the King wants to show tolerance, why doesn't he let women drive? Now, that would be revolutionary.

It is not king abdulla who punishes people who do not adhere to strict islam,it is the religious police.Unfortunatley they cant get rid of them for many reasons.
I dont think right now shia muslims should be given more power, examples hezbollah syria and iran.
I also hear that women will be allowed to drive soon.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Its ironic that King Abdullah would play a leadership role in a conference about religious tolerance given the complete lack of such tolerance in his own country. Not only are other religions not tolerated, but even failing to adhere strictly enough to Islam can result in punishment. Not to mention how the Kingdom regards Shia Muslims.

Yes, sitting in a room and listening to an Israeli leader praise your own peace plan is progress, such as it is. But we really should be expecting more. If the King wants to show tolerance, why doesn't he let women drive? Now, that would be revolutionary.

There is a huge difference between Royal Family and the mutawa (religious police). Let me assure you that if they had their way the Mutawas' would cease to exist. Over the years, the mutawa's have had some of their powers stripped of them. We as muslim women (raging liberal) currently resident in the middle east understand its not an easy thing to put an end to at the moment.

The one thing we desire is peace in the middle east, most especially with Isreal. It is important to us that it happens now. And it is a huge step in the right direction, if King Abdullah is showing some respect to Isreal. We believe and we know we'll (Muslim women) get what we want eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I made the second point above, and what I meant is that is is great that the Saudi king was civil to the Israelis, but now to rude conflict now the Israelis need to be civil to the Palestinians... I'd use guns if my kids were starving, no medications, and no future to hope for.

Not to debate the entire Palestinian / Israeli conflict, just trying to stick to the civility theme (Obama's can't we just sit down and talk?), don't BOTH sides need to be civil? Shouldn't we be calling on Palestinians AND Israelis BOTH to be civil? Tit for Tat is not civil - it is childish. Unfortunately, when suicide bombers kill from one side, the other side builds a fence. None of that is terribly productive IMO and it only leads me more firmly to believe that change can only occur if we can sit down and discuss our grievances and work together in a spirit of cooperation. King Abdullah sitting and listening to Israel is a very important, albeit small, step in the right direction and IMO should be encouraged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is a huge difference between Royal Family and the mutawa (religious police). Let me assure you that if they had their way the Mutawas' would cease to exist. Over the years, the mutawa's have had some of their powers stripped of them. We as muslim women (raging liberal) currently resident in the middle east understand its not an easy thing to put an end to at the moment.

Some time ago I read a book about the Gulf oil monarchies arguing that the religious clerics had so much power because the royal families were using them to keep people in line. That is, if I give the clerics bunches of money, then I don't have to worry about anyone questioning my highly undemocratic methods of controlling the citizenry.

PP, would you comment on that? Sounds like you know a lot more than I about the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I made the second point above, and what I meant is that is is great that the Saudi king was civil to the Israelis, but now to rude conflict now the Israelis need to be civil to the Palestinians... I'd use guns if my kids were starving, no medications, and no future to hope for.

Not to debate the entire Palestinian / Israeli conflict, just trying to stick to the civility theme (Obama's can't we just sit down and talk?), don't BOTH sides need to be civil? Shouldn't we be calling on Palestinians AND Israelis BOTH to be civil? Tit for Tat is not civil - it is childish. Unfortunately, when suicide bombers kill from one side, the other side builds a fence. None of that is terribly productive IMO and it only leads me more firmly to believe that change can only occur if we can sit down and discuss our grievances and work together in a spirit of cooperation. King Abdullah sitting and listening to Israel is a very important, albeit small, step in the right direction and IMO should be encouraged.

I am entirely opposed to suicide bombing. I think it makes things worse. The first intifada in the 80s featured none of that. While there were some kids throwing stones, it was on the whole more nonviolent than what is happening today and, for that reason, the world began to pay attention to the plight of the Palestinian people.

However, today many Palestinians are entirely cynical about the peace process. Israel was supposed to freeze the settlements in the West Bank following the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993. That never happened. Israel may not have made additional settlements (in terms of laying claim to new land) but since then the population of the settlements has more than doubled. Socio-economically speaking the settlers live a privileged life compared to the Palestinian residents of the area. They get the lion's share of the water in a very dry land. They drive on nice roads which go right to their towns and bypass the Palestinian towns. No one stops them at check points when they're having heart attacks and are trying to get to the hospital. No one makes them wait at checkpoints every day to get to work -- making a short trip turn into one of many hours' length.

I agree that suicide bombing has not helped the situation and I want them to stop doing that. But I also understand how people who are desperate feel they have no other choice.