Give me a Break: And I thought the Saudis were making progress...

Turki al-Faisal - A Path to Middle East Peace - washingtonpost.com

Just when I believed the Saudis were making progress in the international scene, which to me means simply staying quiet and not causing trouble, this former, self-important excuse for a diplomat thinks it wise to lend his intelligent voice to the discussion on how President-Elect Obama can finally reach peace in the Middle East. Beyond the initial argument that the Saudis should have no say in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict simply because they are not one of the direct neighbors of Israel or have ever truly been concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, Turki al-Faisal feels it necesarry to voice his opinion on how the United States can become further involved in the inter-state politics of the current Middle East. Not that Afghanistan and Iraq were enough for the Saudis to "lament" over.

"There is universal agreement that the Palestinian people are under occupation and have been deprived of their land. It is beyond debate that their rights -- which derive from divinely inspired texts, international law and the basic principles of justice and equity -- have been ignored, as have all attempts to seek redress."

Let us examine this argument piece by piece. First, Faisal uses the term occupation to describe the current situation of the Palestinian people. Occupation however implies military control and law in a given area. If this is in reference to the West Bank then we can say there are in fact Palestinians under occupational forces and law. Yet we cannot ignore the thousands of Jews and Israelis under the same occupational force and law in the West Bank. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all fall under the same letter of the law in the West Bank. It is the definition of citizenship, whether Israeli or Palestinian that become the true nature of the problem. A problem that the former ambassador does not seem to address.

Yet perhaps Faisal means the Gaza Strip. Well, the Israeli military and government unilaterally disengaged and left the Gaza strip back in the summer of 2005. I would argue Faisal is correct in one respect in terms of occupation, the Palestinians of Gaza are being occupied by a recognized terrorist organization. Hamas is preventing progress in the same peace process that Turki al-Faisal wishes Obama to pursue. No where in his article does Faisal even mention the hundreds of Kassam rockets this "democratically-elected" government in the Gaza Strip showers on the innocent civilians of the Israeli south. No where does he condemn these senseless acts of war against a peaceful nation; a state that has been willing to negotiate for peace at any chance it is given.

The Saudi diplomat then has the nerve to go on about "divinely inspired texts", without giving any credence what-so-ever to the other side, the Jewish side. Are the "divinely inspired texts" of th Jews any less significant? Turki al-Faisal, what you say here is not a valid factual argument in any respect. You would defend the religious basis for ownership of the land from YOUR religious point of view, but for others, not even Jews perhaps maybe Christians, it isn't an issue. We are simply wrong because our religions are wrong. If you can't overcome the religious agenda and barriers Mr. Ambassador then perhaps you can't even begin commenting on how "[Obama's] presidency could have a marked impact on world affairs". As I understand this recent election season, it is the prospect of overcoming racial and ethnic walls that has led to this historic achievement. A country that had one of the bloodiest civil wars over slavery of African Americans has elected an African American to its highest office.

Finally, Mr. Faisal can you defend the fact that in calling the rights of the Palestinians "which derive from divinely inspired texts, international law and the basic principles of justice and equity" you simultaneously disregard and trash the same idea that the rights of Israelis derive from the same sort of texts, international law and basic principles of justice and equity? By making such statements you are not only being hypocritical, you're being a down-right bigot who doesn't care for anything or anyone but his own concerns and people.

Sir, you mention Jimmy Carter, for whom I for one have no respect for at all; whose book has only fanned the flames of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias and rhetoric. You say that the day Israel was established was "a day when the idea of a world built on equality, freedom and self-determination died." There is no other way to interpret this than also meaning that you firmly believe Israel should not and cannot exist in an ideal peaceful world. If you truly want to pursue a policy of peace, these statements and remarks are not the means to that end.

Mr. Ambassador get off your high religious horse, tell your government that if they want to help in the Middle East maybe stopping funding of terrorist activities could be a good start, and as for the initial reasons for the Palestinian conflict, look at your own country's historical blunders and you may find some interesting facts. If your country had stepped up then, we may in fact have peace now.

And this Saudi believes he knows how Obama can properly handle the situation in the Middle East?

Give me a break.