Talkin’ Turki, part two

Soccer Dad has an excellent post about the former Saudi ambassador’s op-ed in the Washington Post. But he and I have different views of the piece. Here are the parts that leaped out at me.

In May, Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of its creation. For Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brethren, Israel’s founding is “al-Naqba,” or “the Catastrophe.” It is the day the dream of an independent, Arab-Palestinian state was shattered; a day when the idea of a world built on equality, freedom and self-determination died.

Let’s deconstruct this thought: The day that Israel declared her independence, in accord with the United Nations declaring that the British Mandate of Palestine be split into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs, that was “the day the dream of an independent, Arab-Palestinian state was shattered”? Really? That can’t be true—unless you consider a Jewish state in the “waqf” of Palestine to be an abomination. And the Saudi isn’t saying that, is he?

Well, let’s take a look at the next paragraph.

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.

Really? Divinely inspired texts? Which ones would those be? The Koran? There’s no mention of Jerusalem in the Koran. Or maybe he’s talking about “divinely inspired texts” like the Hamas charter?

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

[…] This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

The Saudis have no real problem with Hamas, except when Hamas starts killing Fateh terrorists. And of course, Saudi Arabia is ruled by Sharia, so I’m thinking I’m not far off in referencing this particular text.

And then we have this:

But looking at the discussions in detail — especially after Rabin’s assassination — it appears that the Israelis used Oslo as a cover through which they could appropriate more Palestinian lands, especially around Jerusalem. Israeli negotiators stubbornly fought over secondary issues while refusing to negotiate final-status issues, which would have been the keys to lasting and secure peace. Since the failure of Oslo, the waves of violence and counter-violence have been almost as predictable as the tides.

Here, he accuses of Israel of refusing to discuss final-status issues. “Final-status issues” are generally the two biggest issues of contention: Jerusalem and the refugees. “Secondary” issues are things like, oh, stopping terror, whether or not the PA should field an army, security for Israelis—things like that. In 1996, as Soccer Dad points out, there was a wave of terrorist attacks in Israel. Israel rightly demanded an end to terrorism as one of the conditions of a Palestinian state. Turki considers this a “secondary” issue—one not nearly as important as flooding Israel with milions of Palestinian refugees, and turning Jerusalem over to the Arabs again. It is, quite frankly, a lie. Israel did not “refuse” to discuss final-status issues. Everyone knew those were deal-breakers. The idea was to start at the beginning and work your way towards the end. That’s why they’re called “final-status issues.” They’re the toughest ones to solve.

He also accuses Israel of doing this deliberately—of bargaining in bad faith. Need I say more?

And then he says that the results of the failure to establish an agreement were “predictable”. Those results were more terror, more murder of Israeli civilians, more bombs on buses. And he equates terrorism with Israel’s reaction to terrorism as “violence and counter-violence,” like they’re equivalent, when clearly, one is offensive and the other defensive. But that’s the status quo on describing Israeli self-defense.

Lastly, Faisal uses the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. He calls on Jimmy Carter, who has been bought and paid for by the Saudis since the BCCI scandal during his administration, to warn Israel what will happen if she doesn’t stop building in Jerusalem suburbs (which the world still calls “settlements”):

If it does not, the world will conclude, as has former president Jimmy Carter, that Israel is interested only in increasing its power and its bargaining position.

Is that what Carter has concluded? Or is that what he has been paid to tell the world? How many millions have the Saudis contributed to the Carter Center? We don’t know, because he refuses to open his books so the world can find how much it costs to buy a former president. (Not that he really had to be bought to come over to their viewpoint. Jimmy Carter does not much like Jews.)

Threats, refusals, and more threats—that’s the Saudi “peace” proposal. Soccer Dad also caught this little bit of misdirection:

At this point, the Saudi government is constrained from direct talks with Israel.

No, it isn’t. The Saudi government refuses to hold direct talks with Israel. So do the governments of most Arab states. But hey, let’s not let the facts get in the way of the many lies in this op-ed. No, wait, what am I thinking? It’s an op-ed. There can be no fact-checking. Except, of course, when it comes to the pro-Israel stance. Take a look at the many pro-Israel op-eds the WaPo has published, and you’ll see what I mean.

Oh, that’s right. There aren’t any that I can think of.