LGF links to an exchange between the Israel and Saudi ambassadors in columns in Canada’s National Post.Without seeing the response, I would think that Israeli ambassador Alan Baker won with this paragraph:
Complete freedom of religion for all is strictly protected in Israel — unlike in neighbouring countries, which recognize only one state religion, Islam, and even criminalize and persecute the practice of other faiths. Consider, for instance, Saudi Arabia, whose police recently arrested 40 Christians for the “crime†of praying in a private house. Followers of the Baha’is religion, who are persecuted in Iran, are welcomed in Israel, and maintain their central religious institutions in Haifa and Acre. Coptic Christians, who face restrictions in neighbouring Arab countries, enjoy freedom of religion in Israel.
But the Saudi ambassador, Abdulaziz H. Al-Sowayegh, calls on the experts:
For this reason, I leave it up to readers to learn about the reality on the ground in Israel by referring, for instance, to the American peace activist Rachel Corrie on the internet or Palestine: Peace not Apartheid by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter.
Yes, Rachel Corrie and Jimmy Carter will present readers with an accurate portrayal of the situation in the Middle East.
What about checking on the victims of Israeli, apartheid? Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians?
According to a recent poll cited by David Hazony,
… no fewer than 75 percent of Israeli Arab youth, and over 70 percent of the overall Arab population, support the idea of national service. Nor is this just a matter of getting better jobs, or equality with Jews: According to the poll, “68 percent of those who support national service said they are in favor because it contributes to the country and Israeli society.â€
So if, as the Saudi ambassador suggests, Israel offers Arabs apartheid, apparently a high percentage of Arabs crave apartheid. Or perhaps it isn’t apartheid that Israel offers.
It’s also worth commenting on Hazony’s observations:
This is astonishing on a number of fronts: First, it suggests that what most people think about the loyalty of Israeli Arabs may be just wrong. Second, it suggests an enormous disparity between what elected officials are saying on a central issue of political identity, and what their own voters actually believe–which makes one wonder what the point of all those elections was. Third, it suggests that Israeli Arab leaders are much more interested in appearing to be a part of the Arab world than in advancing the actual interests of their constituents–which makes one wonder where their funding must be coming from. Finally, it suggests that, contrary to proper democratic functioning, there is something preventing more reasonable candidates from being fielded among the Israeli Arab community.
Daled Amos observes succinctly:
It is also indicates that once again, everyone is all too eager to accept what self-serving Arab leaders are claiming.
If there’s one phrase that’s been more counterproductive to peaceful coexistence in the Middle East than anything else it’s been the description of the PLO as the “sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.” By giving a group committed to the pan-Arab goal of destroying Israel the power to define the terms of what was acceptable, the world effectively assured that peace could never be achieved.
Back in the early eighties a professor named Menachem Milson wrote an article in Commentary arguing that Israel ought to circumvent the PLO supporting mayors of Arab cities and reach out to “village leagues” as he called them, to find Palestinians who would deal with Israel. Milson left his post after a year and suffered quite a bit of vituperation for trying to circumvent the PLO. However, subsequent events have seemingly vindicated his judgment.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
