Los Angeles and Riyadh: The difference is there to see

Sabria S. Jawhar
I returned recently from my first trip to the United States to attend a conference in Pasadena, California, just outside of Los Angeles.

As with most first-timers to America, I found many of my preconceptions of the country wrong. One has a tendency to generalize and stereotype people only to find that they are just like the rest of us. Americans are friendly, open, frank and curious. They were interested in me and what I had to say.

Naturally, I behaved like a tourist when I found the time. I visited Universal Studios and got the tourist view of Hollywood. I strolled down Hollywood Boulevard and took in the street performers. And, of course, I went to Disneyland, wore my Minnie Mouse ears and enjoyed the rides.

It’s the nuances, however, of the country and how its citizens treat one another that really impressed me. How professionals, clerks and authorities engage each other while conducting business. How courtesy and respect is the rule of the day no matter what job a person performs.Does this translate simply into saying “please” and “thank you” when purchasing a pack of chewing gum at a convenience store?Yes, it does.

But it’s the larger picture that matters, such as a crisis or emergency. And this contrasts sharply with how Saudis go about the business of helping each other in time of need. This was brought home to me while I was having a late lunch with a colleague at a restaurant in a Los Angeles suburb.An 84-year-old woman had fallen on the floor. She hurt her back and was in extreme pain.

The restaurant staff without prompting from anyone immediately called for an ambulance and the local fire department’s paramedic team, which is similar to our Red Crescent, arrived within three minutes and treated the woman, taking her blood pressure, and asking many questions.The poor woman didn’t want to go to the hospital for treatment but the paramedics insisted and refused to take no for an answer.

In less than 10 minutes she was placed on a stretcher and rushed to the hospital. The paramedics were friendly, efficient and professional.They knew they disrupted our lunch with their presence, and stopped by our table for a friendly chat and a joke to make us comfortable before leaving.

The other patrons in the restaurant didn’t blink an eye over this little drama because it’s routine, but it certainly amazed me. I’ve seen these scenes in American movies and thought it was a Hollywood invention. But it turns out it’s the real thing.

The incident reminded me of a far more serious accident that occurred in Riyadh with much more tragic ending. Muhannad Abu Daiah is a true Saudi treasure. He is not well-known among the Saudi public, but he is responsible for 22 inventions in physics and robotics. He led a Saudi physics team in a world competition in South Korea in 2004 and won the championship. He created the first Arabic website on physics.

He is a rare breed who has earned international recognition for his work.Not long ago he was in involved a traffic accident and badly injured. Red Crescent was delayed in arriving. When the crew did arrive, they loaded him up in the ambulance, but passed several government hospitals to take him onto a private one.

Once at the private hospital, treatment was delayed six hours until his family could arrive and sign the papers. The surgery to repair his right leg took nine hours, but ultimately failed to fix the damage. His family paid SR80,000. Once the bill was settled, he was transferred to a specialist hospital, but was not admitted for 24 hours despite pleas from his family and several highly placed officials.

This poor fellow, who has done so much to enhance the prestige of Saudi Arabia in the international community with his fine work, was forced to have his leg amputated.So what happened here? What happened to our humanity and compassion?How is it that Saudi Arabia can donate $50 million to the victims of the earthquake in China but can’t find the will to treat a traffic accident victim with dignity.

The difference between the way Saudis treat the people in an emergency and how the Americans do it is that Americans have institutionalized – through policies, laws and common sense – a standard practice on how to treat people who are injured or in desperate need of treatment no matter their station in life.The old woman in the restaurant was nobody important except to her family and friends, yet the paramedics were kind by calling her “sweetie” and treated her as if she was the most important person on earth at the moment.

In Saudi Arabia, the hospital that was responsible for Muhannad Abu Daiah’s treatment treated him as if he were more trouble than he was worth because no one knew who he was – as if that should make a difference.We should keep in mind that hospital administrators, doctors, Red Crescent employees and even nurses represent our society and are viewed at varying levels as persons of authority.

They represent us and our government. Our perceptions of our government are based on the treatment we receive from these individuals. The paramedics who treated the old woman earned my respect that day. I can’t say the same for the people responsible for treating Muhannad Abu Daiah.

I know there are people out there who will view my opinions as being product of American brainwashing. Not so fast. I was there only a week. But I know what I saw. And if it came down to being treated during an emergency in a Los Angeles suburb or in Riyadh, well I think in this case the Americans would win out.

Dude, where’s my gas?

Sabria S. Jawhar

PRESIDENT Bush has again left Saudi Arabia empty-handed. Apparently he hasn’t learned from his previous trip that giving more oil to the United States is not the solution to deal with high gasoline prices there.

Bush’s first trip to meet with Saudi officials, which culminated into the first rejection, was embarrassing enough. But for an American president to come back yet again with hat in hand only emphasizes Bush’s weakness as a leader. His mission to persuade the Saudis to increase oil production was futile, and he knew it even before he boarded Air Force One.

The price of a barrel of crude oil is flirting with $128. The reasons for the soaring oil price are so complex that if you ask a hundred oil and economic experts worldwide about them, you probably will get just as many different answers.But experts do agree on one thing: Oil supplies are not the problem, and global demand is not so high as to force prices up.

David Kelly, chief market strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, told the Washington Post earlier this month that the “growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong.”

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that Bush traveled all the way to Saudi Arabia on the false and simplistic assumption that dropping oil production quotas, or at least increasing production, would solve his problems.Business Week reported that US oil stockpiles had reached 33 million barrels since January 1, while the demand for gasoline had dropped by almost six percent.

US oil refineries are not even running at full capacity. In fact, they have dropped their utilization from 89 percent to 85 percent this year. Yet, the US continues to stockpile anywhere from 800,000 to 1.4 million barrels of gasoline, which demonstrates the decline in consumption.This is why there aren’t any long queues at US gas stations like they did in the 1970s.

The myth that China is responsible for a surge in demand is simply media speculation. The Energy Information Agency reports that “China’s oil consumption is expected to rise by 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2008, with Chinese oil imports in March showing an increase of 800,000 bpd from year-earlier levels.

So, China’s oil consumption is projected to remain relatively unchanged, which hardly translates into a surge of demand.Just before Bush’s trip to see Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, Ali Al-Naimi, the Kingdom’s Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, announced that oil production will be raised by 300,000 bpd, with most of the extra supplies going to the US.

But the Saudi government rejected Bush’s new pleas, noting that there is no demand to justify the increase, and that production increases will not bring gasoline prices down.Needless to say, Bush’s visit to Saudi Arabia was pointless. In effect, his visit wrongly sends a signal to the American public that Saudi Arabia alone is responsible for the high oil prices and denying oil to the US.

He apparently is forgetting that there are 12 other members in OPEC, all of whom have a say in setting prices and production.Instead of pointing fingers at Saudi Arabia – or other OPEC members, for that matter – perhaps the US ought to examine its own role in driving prices up.

The $10-a-barrel paradise of the late 1990s simply vaporized into double-digit high hell when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps a single-front war in Afghanistan might have kept oil prices stable, but the US took its eyes off the ball and began its folly in Iraq. From that point on, oil prices began to spiral out of control.

Prices soared as the wars dragged on, pushing the US deeper and deeper into debt, and weakening the value of the US dollar in the process. The weak dollar, to which crude prices are pegged, is largely responsible for the high prices.

Along with a weakening dollar, consider a US Senate staff report published in June 2006, which stated that “there is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased (oil) prices.”Unregulated commodities trading in energy futures has sparked a US congressional investigation.

A congressional report found that high oil prices were a result of billions of dollars in oil and natural gas contracts being placed at the Intercontinental Exchange, also known as ICE, which is not under the supervision of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

So if the US government is hot on dropping the price of a barrel of crude oil and wants to give American motorists relief at the gas pump, it should look into its own backyard before accusing OPEC of holding Americans hostage by refusing to increase production.

Hezbollah shooting itself in the foot

Sabria S. Jawhar

FOR those who have any doubts, Hezbollah’s attack in West Beirut could be a monumental disaster.

Over a couple of days Hezbollah forces seized control of a portion of the Lebanese capital in what appeared first to be a coup against the country’s weak government and passive military, but ended up simply being a show of force. On Saturday the Lebanese Army, which has been neutral in the conflict between Hezbollah and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government, agreed to help find a solution to the dispute between the two parties over Hezbollah’s private telephone network and the government’s attempt to fire the airport security chief, who is a key ally of Hezbollah.

I have mixed feelings about an army that refuses to bring law and order on the streets while gunmen from both sides kill dozens of people and destroy businesses. But I also admire the army’s restraint not to take sides and commit further bloodshed.But the disaster lies in Hezbollah’s show of strength. We’ve already witnessed Hezbollah’s power during the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war in which it single-handedly fended off constant Israeli attacks. The organization scored a major long-term victory when the war ended in a stalemate and deeply embarrassed the Israeli government. I’m not sure what is the point of this latest adventure.

The problem is the unpredictability of the Bush administration and its strong desire to wage war on yet another Muslim country. President Bush has long rattled his saber against Iran and is hungry to bomb it out of existence. But the reality is that the US military is stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no matter how rosy Bush wants to paint a picture of the alleged success in his “surge,” the US military can’t go the distance on a third front in Iran. The truth is Iran can stand on its own against Bush.But Syria is another story.

Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Syria precisely because arms flood to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran. If attacking Iran is out of the question, why not its more vulnerable little brother, Syria?Bush has long supported Lebanon’s existing government under Siniora, and will support any democratically elected government as long as it serves as opposition to Hezbollah.What Hezbollah has done in this demonstration of power in West Beirut is turn its guns on the Lebanese instead of the Israelis. It broke its promise to the Lebanese people and in a very disturbing sign has sparked sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias. By fomenting sectarian violence in Lebanon, Hezbollah has only demonstrated that Muslims can’t work jointedly to put together a collaborative and cohesive government. We continue to look like idiots who can’t manage our own affairs.

This muscle-flexing by Hezbollah – muscles provided by Syria – will lead the Bush administration to conclude that containing Hezbollah can be achieved by containing Syria through military might.Most Middle East observers agree that events in Lebanon set the stage for what occurs in the rest of the region.

Sectarian violence has largely been confined to Iraq. But if it erupts in Lebanon, then there is a real danger that it can spread throughout the region. And if Sunnis and Shias fight among themselves, then Bush can slip through the back door of Syria and destroy its government, its military and its infrastructure. And we can kiss goodbye to any hope of the US military abandoning the Middle East any time in the next 20 years.

Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that this latest round of violence is isolated, or worse, should not be taken seriously by the United States. Bush and his warmongers want us to bicker and fight among ourselves. It makes us weak. We are giving the United States the excuse they need to invade Syria.

In a response to Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s last week’s call for an urgent meeting, the Arab League ministers met in Cairo Sunday. They issued a statement making an “urgent call for an immediate halt to hostilities, a ceasefire” and “the withdrawal of all combatants from areas of tension to facilitate the army’s duties to maintain security and stop the bloodshed.”They also said that they will send a delegation to try to reach a settlement between the Hezbollah-led opposition and the government.

Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the most influential Arab coutriers in the region, will not be represented by their delegations and judging from the results of past Arab summit meetings, I am not hopeful. When it comes to Lebanon’s internal politics, I don’t think that much will be accomplished unless Syria and Iran are contained and brought to the table of discussion. But the fact is, the region is boiling and we are running out of time.

Virtue Commission under the spotlight

Sabria S. Jawhar

THERE has been an extraordinary amount of coverage of the doings of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Most of it hasn’t been very positive.

There have been fatal car chases, couples taken out of coffee shops and raids ending in death. The media glare has put the Commission under a spotlight. And naturally, the Western media loves to report this stuff.

The latest incident that was reported by the media involved a Filipina nurse who was arrested with her Western male friend in a Riyadh restaurant for being in a state of “khulwa.”The man was hauled off and shackled while the woman was jailed and not a word from her has been heard since. Even the Philippines Embassy has no access to her.

Many men I know believe there is a need for the Commission in the Saudi society. There is a need to ensure that our morality is protected and it does our society good to have noble men remind us of our duties.

Women, on the other hand, have mixed feelings about the Commission.The Western man dining with his Filipina companion was humiliated by being picked up by his belt and thrust into a Commission vehicle while diners tried to look the other way. But at the end he was released and his female companion remains in custody.

We also saw a similar incident with a businesswoman arrested in Starbucks.But the problem is not just unequal justice for men and women, it’s the inconsistency in which the laws are applied and the procedure in which these laws are enforced.

Let’s consider the case of the Filipina nurse and her companion for a moment. I don’t know whether they are Muslims, but even if they are they come from a part of the world in which two unrelated people having dinner together is a normal thing. We often tell foreigners that they must respect the customs and religion of their host country, but by the same token we did not respect their sensibilities. We should ask ourselves even whether a state of “khulwa” applies to non-Muslims. And if it does, should it be applied throughout Saudi Arabia and not just parts of it.

I’m sorry to have to inform the Commission that in Jeddah many unrelated couples go out for dinner or a cup of coffee together. If being in a state of “khulwa” is an offense that requires arrest, is it serious enough to shackle the offenders? Is it serious enough to deny a foreigner access to his or her embassy? And if it is indeed a serious offense, does that justify making a very public arrest and humiliating the offenders in front of others?

We were promised not long ago that the Commission would implement a program to educate its members on how to deal with foreigners, how to make arrests and how to counsel those who need reminding of their pious duties. It appears that little has been accomplished.Commission members have complained recently about the bad publicity they have been getting and that their noble deeds go unrecognized.It seems to me that it cuts both ways. Recognition for good deeds usually follows the good deed.

I’m not sure carrying a man by his belt and then clamping leg irons on his ankles is necessarily a sensitive or noble thing to do.If the Commission hopes to minimize the negative publicity it has received in the past years or so, then perhaps its policies and procedures, especially when dealing with non-Muslims, should be clearly defined.The Commission announced recently that it has set up a media and public relations department to counter negative publicity. Instead of countering bad press, though, I hope the new department will allow the Commission to be more transparent and helpful to the media and to the public in general.

Saudi Health Ministry worries more about its image than patients

During my last visit to Saudi Arabia I spoke with a source from the Ministry of Health at a local hospital. He told me about the severe shortage of sterile disposable surgical gloves and the frequent infections patients suffer following surgery at some government hospitals.

He said that the cleaning crews at one of the hospitals were using the gloves for their cleaning duties, although doctors and nurses in the surgical units didn’t have enough to take care of patients.

His story reminded me of an incident I had while my mother was having dialysis in a government hospital. A nurse came in wearing surgical gloves stained with blood after attending another patient with Hepatitis C. When I asked her to remove the gloves, she carelessly told me that she had no replacements and went about her business.

Another doctor told me once about physicians complaining to the Ministry of Health about the poor quality of stitches supplied to the hospital. He said some of them were so poor that they would break open and allow the wound to open.

I have been accompanying my mother now for a few years to government hospitals and have seen and heard many incidents like these. So it’s no wonder that the National Human Rights Association came out with a report severely criticizing the Ministry of Health for the way it dispenses medical treatment to the patients.

The report is no surprise to any of us with experience in dealing with government hospitals. But what is truly troubling is the Ministry of Health’s reaction to the report.

Simply, Ministry officials seem to think that the Human Rights Association needs their permission to make their findings public. No, that’s not correct. The association is doing its job to inform the public.
But I understand why the Ministry of Health is embarrassed.

The Human Rights Association found the following: Health services are not distributed evenly to difference regions; rural areas tend to receive fewer services than metropolitan areas; many families must move from rural areas to major cities to receive medication; the Ministry of Health does not do enough to minimize medical mistakes; there is a huge shortage of medication in government pharmacies, forcing patients to purchase their own medicines; government hospital emergency rooms are providing substandard care; the medical staff in many hospitals are less qualified and manpower shortages continue to be a problem; and prisoners, especially those who are HIV-positive or suffering from psychological problems, receive substandard care.

The report is damning, but what is the Ministry of Health’s response?

According to the Ministry, the Human Rights Association does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the Ministry or release information until the Ministry responds to the report.
Patient care appears to be a little further down the list of priorities while the Ministry’s reputation is more important.

The Association responded to the Ministry’s concerns with logic. The group’s leaders pointed out that they were simply doing their job by reporting in a transparent manner the complaints from Saudi citizens about the Kingdom’s health services.

The group is following the rules and guidelines established by a government decree, which is part of the constitution.

Besides, the Human Rights Association isn’t telling us anything we haven’t heard already. One must be deaf and blind not to recognize the serious shortcomings of government hospitals.

Perhaps the Ministry of Health should stop with its arrogant attitude and acknowledge its repeated mistakes.

It’s perhaps unfair to compare Saudi Arabia’s health care system with that of a Western country, but the Ministry of Health could learn a few lessons from the United Kingdom.

I recently signed up for health care with the UK’s National Health Service. My very first impression was not promising because the moment I entered the reception of my general practitioner for the very first time, I discovered a dog wondering around while its owner was attending to some business at the counter. My initial reaction was to walk out, but I stayed for the appointment.

I found a very caring and attentive doctor who not only diagnosed my condition, but provided me with educational material for me to read later.

I was given an appointment card for a test that included instructions of what to do and what to eat before and after the test. Even though I was allocated a specific time to see the doctor, she patiently answered all of my questions and never was in a rush to see me leave.

This is a concept lost in Saudi Arabia’s government hospitals and it begs the question of when the Ministry of Health will stop worrying about its image and start spending more time on quality patient care.

We are not a poor country and our people deserve a better service when it comes to their lives.

Jimmy Carter proves that diplomacy achieves results

By Sabria S. Jawhar
The Saudi Gazette

It's a curious thing about Americans. The estimated 300 million or so people seem to think they are right about how Israel should deal with the Palestinians, while there's more than a billion people on the other side of the planet that have their own ideas.

What makes the United States government right when it argues that political groups it deems as terrorists have no place as the negotiation table, but gives Israel a free pass to curb commerce, destroy infrastructure and allow the collateral damage of killing civilians to far outnumber the deaths of so-called militants?

But my instinct to generalize and stereotype Americans as Muslim-hating, anti-Palestinian, Israeli-loving-at-any-cost war-mongers is put to the test when I consider the efforts of President Jimmy Carter to negotiate with Hamas. Here's a man who has been mocked, ridiculed, labeled a traitor to his country and described as anti-Semitic because he dared to say that Israel practices apartheid. Yet he continues to perform unpopular work in the name of peace.

Hamas was deemed a terrorist organization in 1995 and since then the United States has refused to negotiate with it. When the United States in effect sponsored the 2006 elections in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and was shocked to see Hamas voted democratically into power, it still held on to the antiquated policy not to negotiate.

Sure, Hamas occasionally behaves stupidly. What is to be gained by its over-the-top rhetoric to annihilate Israel or to cross the border to kidnap Israeli soldiers? Of course, the US doesn't behave any less stupid with its grand, but tragic adventure into Iraq and its own rhetoric against Iran. Equally stupid is its insistence to condemn the idea of talking to a political group that represents, for better or worse, all Palestinian, or at least the majority.

Consider, however, Carter's efforts to deal with Hamas. He has accomplished more in the past week than the Bush administration has in more than seven years and more than the Clinton administration when it decided that Hamas was the bogeyman.

By simply meeting with Hamas Carter has already shown the United States what Arab leaders have known all along. Reasonable people can separate the rhetoric from the true actions of a group. In this case Carter has gotten Hamas to agree to peace negotiated with Israel by its rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as long as it is ratified in a referendum by the Palestinian people. Even if Hamas did not agree with the terms of the agreement, they would leave it to their people.

That's a far cry from wanting Israel wiped off the map.

Carter also recognizes what everyone else in the Middle East already knows. Refusing to bring Hamas to the negotiation table is not working. Rather, we have seen President Bush, Dick Cheney and the hapless Condoleezza Rice trudge up to the White House attic, dust off the same old peace plans, slap a pretty new cover on it and try to shove it down the Palestinians' throats without discussion or so much as a single concession from Israel.

"We believe that the problem is not that I met Hamas in Syria," Carter said in speech in Jerusalem on Monday. "The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with these people, who must be involved."

While Carter has done great things during his trip, I am not so naïve to think that peace can be achieved anytime soon. Hamas agrees that peace can be accomplished if Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders and allows refugees to return to the homeland. This is essentially the same proposal outlined in the 2002 Arab Peace Plan authored principally by Saudi Arabia. But it's been six years. While Israeli leaders make noises that they like portions of it, they have yet to seriously open negotiations to discuss details.

The problem I see is not Hamas. Far from it. The United States needs to ignore the Israeli lobbyists and its fears of anti-Semitism allegations, and apply pressure to Israel's leaders to act in good faith. Carter, for all of his good intentions, doesn't have the weight to apply this kind of pressure. We've already seen the petty behavior of Israel by refusing to grant Carter protection. Why would Israel consider his pleas for reasonable accommodations for the Palestinians?

In effect, Carter has opened the door for the Bush administration to take the next step, but I am not optimistic. To react favorably to Carter's hopes of a negotiated peace would mean that the Bush administration policy of not talking to Hamas is flawed. And President Bush always thinks of his pride.

Giving Saudi women jobs and respect

By Sabria S. Jawhar

The Saudi Gazette

AT the Saudi Gazette I am fortunate to have editors who value my work and my presence in the editorial department. Working alongside my male colleagues has never been an issue.

That’s why it’s good news to hear that the Ministry of Labor has issued new regulations allowing men and women to mix in government offices. I can only assume that the private sector will follow. I am sure that some families will now reconsider whether to allow their daughters, wives or sisters enter the Saudi workforce. But the benefits from this new decision far outweigh any of the negatives especially if, as the decree says, Islamic regulations are taken into consideration.

But this shouldn’t be considered some great leap in modernizing our society. For one, it’s long overdue. We’re just catching up with the rest of the world, Saudi society or no Saudi society. Here we are with the first decade of the 21st century almost over and we can’t even give women the right to work in lingerie shops or give them the right to drive a car.

And we still must address the issue that 60 percent of Saudi women graduate from universities but only 7 percent can get jobs.

By contrast as many as 40 percent of the female population in other Gulf countries are working. If Saudi Arabia is investing so much in getting women educated, especially with full scholarships available for women in universities abroad, then what is the point if jobs are not available for them?
One wonders why Saudis are comfortable with their women traveling to Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates for jobs they should have in Saudi Arabia.

And that’s the issue. Jobs are available, both in government and private sectors. We just aren’t serious about filling them with women.

What’s more important is that Saudi Arabia suffers socially and economically by refusing women the right to work anywhere they choose. By working and contributing to the economy (and imagine if they were free from the economic constraints of hiring private drivers), women provide a second income for their family. They spend more money to contribute to the local economy. And they develop a strong sense of self-respect and a stronger sense of pride and confidence.

And this brings me to the issue that Saudi women need a greater say in their economic and social future. Most Gulf countries have a fair sampling of women in elected positions. Only Saudi Arabia, the Land of the Two Holy Mosques, to which all Arab nations look for guidance, stands alone in shutting women out of the political process.

The Shoura Council has 150 men but only six part-time female advisers. Advisers, mind you, not full-time participating members. Not a single Saudi municipal council has a female member. And, of course, women are not permitted to vote in local elections.

In our society, women - their minds, their bodies, their role in the family - are so tied to a man’s honor, that we have become paralyzed in moving forward to provide them wider opportunities.
For some reason, we are being pulled kicking and screaming into modernizing our society. Yes, we Saudis struggle daily with the concept of modernization. We equate modernization with Westernization or becoming too American. As if wearing a pair of faded jeans is somehow surrendering to the modern Western culture. The same is true of having women mix with men in the workplace or allow them a full seat on the Shoura Council or being elected to the municipal council.

It’s modernizing how we do business and engage in the political process, but it’s not surrendering our cultural or religious values.

We are in the middle of building six economic cities. But what to do with them? Have them stand as a monument to male superiority by denying women the right to participate? Or are we going to open these economic cities to the entire Saudi society?

Summit shows Arabs are paralyzed by indecision

By Sabria S. Jawhar

The Saudi Gazette

When was the last time the Arab Summit actually accomplished something?

Try six years ago when Arab leaders approved the Peace Initiative in Beirut. Since then there has been little that has been positive from these summits. Just plenty of bickering and petty arguments.

If I sound frustrated, well I'm sure that most of the 400 million Arabs across the Gulf countries feel the same. In 2002 we demonstrated unity with the historic peace proposal that would give Israel recognition in exchange for a return to its pre-1967 borders.

Certainly it's frustrating to see apathetic Israeli leaders squander this opportunity for lasting peace in the Middle East and to ease the pain and oppression of the Palestinians, but the proposal reflects well on the Arab League's 22 heads of state.

Unfortunately the very thing that we can take credit for that the United States and the European Union failed to do is now in danger. Delegates at the summit made the suggestion that perhaps it's best to reconsider the Peace Initiative. And it seemed to have gained traction through the two-day meeting.

But the Palestinian delegation urged Arab nations to stand by the proposal.

"The Arab Peace Initiative is a political stance that should not be wavered... If we pull out this initiative we would be doing Israel a favor," said Nimer Hammad, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas just as the the Damascus summit was getting underway. And Abbas has said that despite the Gaza crisis it's still possible for the Palestinians and Israelis to make peace before the end of the year.

Let's consider for a moment this reevaluation of the Peace Initiative. Do we have something better to put on the table? If we are going to withdraw the proposal, what will be put in its place? War? This is the problem with these half-baked ideas that seem to play in the hands of Israel and the United States.

We mumble threats like children when Israel is too lazy to sit at the table and discuss the peace proposal, so I suppose we just take our ball and go home. All that does is give Israel another victory and point fingers at us that we are nothing more than a bunch of quarrelsome Arabs who can't make up our minds of what to do. But having said that, Israel needs to quit waffling and either accept or reject the initiative or be willing to sit at the negotiation table.

We also managed to be lectured by none other than Muammar Qaddafi for our inability to make a decision or organize united front. As usual he was at his colorful best by warning Arab leaders that their countries will be “marginalized and turn into garbage dumps” if we don't get our act together.

Syrian leaders should be held accountable for some of this mess. First, they managed to anger most of their neighbors by meddling in Lebanese affairs. It brought a US warship off the coast of Lebanon. In all, 10 of the Arab League's 22 members stayed home. So even if the ridiculous effort to rethink the Peace Initiative wasn't considered, little would have been accomplished as it is because no one was there to take a leadership position and effect a meaningful agenda.

For instance, we've been told that all sorts of resolutions have been passed. But anybody name just one that means a thing?

This is old news for us who pay attention to this continuing soap opera. Egypt was frozen out of the Arab League for 10 years after it signed a peace agreement with Israel. And through the '90s summits were held only twice. Then in what can only be considered irony, Arab League members decided in 2000 to hold the meetings annually to foster greater unity. The effort started on an optimistic note, and 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan only brought Arab leaders closer to seriously dealing with the region's problems. The 2002 Peace Initiative proved that. But as the crisis in the region grows to epic proportions – the Gaza tragedy, Iraq's occupation, Saddam Hussein's execution, threatening US rhetoric against Iran, Islamophobia – we are paralyzed by indecision.

The only distinction this summit had over the other unimpressive meetings is that it only served to widen the gap between Syria and other Arab nations because of Syria's poor behavior. But we can ill-afford to be so fractious. There will come a time when Syria's neighbors must decide whether they will continue to permit this kind of conduct that further divides the region.

The West's skepticism

By Sabria S. Jawhar
Saudi Gazette

WESTERN media have reacted skeptically to King Abdullah’s plans to convene an inter-Faith conference that will include Jews, Christians and Muslims. By contrast international religious leaders have responded warmly, if not cautiously.

The secular Western press seems to believe there are ulterior motives for the King’s plans. There have been articles that the King wants to lull the West into a false sense of security in an effort to protect the Kingdom’s oil production along with other internal issues.

I forgive Westerners for their ignorance and applaud non-Muslim religious leaders for embracing the King’s objectives. Predictably the West is mixing politics and religion. I thought the Western media would hail the King’s plan and not criticize it. I’m troubled that it’s not possible to give Saudi Arabia the benefit of the doubt.

Think about it. When the king of a country that has Islam’s two holiest places adored and respected by all the Muslims of the world, doesn’t the call for inter-Faith dialogue from that land deserve exploring, if not adopting and promoting it?

Western media have shown little inkling to understand Saudi society and what it takes to move its people to demonstrate tolerance towards other religions. I am not talking about Islam, because the Qur’an is very clear that Jews and Christians are People of the Book and are our brothers and sisters.

But the Israeli occupation and destruction of Palestine and continuing abuses heaped on Muslims in the form of wars and economic sanctions have many Westerners confusing religion with politics. And the same goes for Muslims in which we view world events through a political prism, forgetting that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

We should focus on the advantage of this call for dialogue for the West and not just for Muslims. Those who claim that this is a move to address the Kingdom’s internal issues are forgetting that Saudi Arabia has already established a program to train Imams to study other religions. Is that some kind of public relations effort? No, we are not talking about NGOs implementing programs to address the issue of tolerance but the head of a state. In contrast, what have Western leaders done?

But Western journalists are forgetting several very important developments that led to the King’s decision to create dialogue. First, and this goes back to 2002, is the Arab Peace Plan to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for establishing Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Second is the King’s surprise visit to the Vatican last year to meet with Pope Benedict. Although we are not privy to the conversations between the Pope and the King, it appears that there was an agreement to pursue plans for an inter-faith dialogue conference.

I don’t deny there are practical concerns as well. Saudi Arabia is now a member of the World Trade Organization and there have been accelerated efforts to attract foreign business to our country, not to mention attempts to become a country that does more than produce oil. We certainly have to move more aggressively in establishing stronger relationships with other religions.

This has been a course charted since 9/11. And it’s a course that Saudis have been following. But the West is so very impatient with its short attention span. The Western media is like a child sucking on a piece of candy. When the candy is gone the child immediately wants another one without thinking about that tummy ache ahead.

The media want quick fixes and when those quick fixes don’t come, it becomes suspicious and skeptical about the fix when it’s finally offered. It’s odd that after all the abuse that has been heaped on Saudi Arabia since 9/11, that Western countries have been so silent about this dramatic announcement by the King. Let’s not kid ourselves.

It’s a major step for Saudi Arabia to invite Christians and Jews to a worldwide conference in which the whole world will be watching. And the road to accomplish that task won’t be easy. Admittedly, we have a conservative segment of our society who will not embrace these efforts, but for some reason the West is not prepared to give the King credit for this courageous step.

It’s kind of like the conservatives in the West demanding every 15 minutes that Muslims condemn terrorism. But when we condemn terrorism every minute of every day, no one pays attention. Our critics demand that Saudi Arabia demonstrate tolerance towards all religions. When we do, no one pays attention.