|
||||||||||
|
|
My Talk with the Saudis, and What I Learned from Them July 22, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 | 03:31 PM (EST) Read
More: Barack Obama, Interfaith
Dialogue, Islam, Judaism, Media Bias, Modernizing Islam,
Saudi Arabia, Spiritual
Progressives, I had expected the World
Conference on Dialogue convened by the King of Saudi Arabia to be little more
than a photo op for the King, a cheap way to buy good public relations for a
regime that has refused to increase production of oil as a way to reduce the
current surge in the price, provided haven and support for the Wahabist form of
Islam that has fostered extremists like Saudi-born and raised Osama bin Ladin
and many others, and has done far too little with its wealth to alleviate the
poverty and suffering of many in the Middle East. Imagine my surprise, then, to
hear the Saudi King in a language that, as one Muslim observer pointed out to
me, sounded more like the New Bottom Line of the Network of Spiritual
Progressives than it did like a speech of a self-absorbed monarch. King Abdullah started with a
strong affirmation of the goal of a new kind of tolerance between religions.
Religions have not caused wars, said the king, but rather extremists who have
misused religion in a hurtful and harmful way. A truly religious person would
not resort to war, the King reminded us. But why do people respond to the
extremists? Because there is a deep spiritual crisis in the world, and it is
that crisis which creates the conditions in which exploitation, crime, drugs,
family breakdown and extremism flourish. The king went on to explain that
it should be the task of the various religious communities of the world to work
together to overcome that spiritual crisis. But that will require religious
cooperation, which must begin with mutual respect and tolerance. We need to
emphasize what all religions have in common -- the ethical message that
permeates every major religion. That message is that hatred can be overcome
through love. We in the religious world need to choose love to overcome hatred,
justice over oppression, peace over wars, universal brotherhood over racism. To me, this didn't sound like the
King I had come to expect from Western media. Just as the media has frequently
distorted our message of Spiritual Progressives, and the Jewish community media
has for 22 years consistently represented me and the peace-oriented position of
Tikkun as anti-Israel or as New Age posturing, so the Western media has portrayed
the Saudis as backward reactionaries. I can't remember hearing either Bush or
Carter speaking like this or, for that matter, any Israeli Prime Minister
including Rabin. The overwhelming majority of
people in the room were leaders from Muslim countries around the world. It
appeared as if they were the King's primary audience. He was introducing a new
language into the Islamic religious discourse, and it was a language that has
in the past largely been rooted in Western humanism and human rights. Many Muslims
in the room mentioned to me or to others that they felt that this speech was
actually a significant breakthrough, because the King is one of the more
influential figures in Islam, since his role as "Protector of the Two
Mosques" (in Mecca and Medina) gives him immense influence in the Islamic
world. The Saudi King was followed by
the King of Spain who talked about tolerance as an old Spanish tradition,
presumably referencing the period when Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in
Spain in the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries. He made no mention of (or
apology for) the Spanish expulsion of all Jews in 1492, nor the forced
conversions and expulsions of Muslims in the following decades. He made a point
of stressing, however, that today Spain is a democracy (presumably to
acknowledge that unlike the King of the Saudis, the King of Spain no longer
rules Spain in the way that the King of the Saudis actually does rule Saudi
Arabia). Next, the leader of the Muslim
World League spoke about the common values held by all humanity that should be
a foundation for transcending our political differences. Instead of rejoicing
at the possibility of a clash of civilizations, as some right-wingers in
America have preached (like Norman Podhoretz in his most recent book World
War IV), we actually need to be seeking cooperation between the various
global civilizations. Islam, he insisted, believes in the equality of all.
There is no legal foundation for the prevalence of any given community or race
within Islam. Here too was an incredibly
hopeful message. It wasn't relevant, really, whether this is an accurate
description of Muslim practice. It was, as was the King's talk, an obvious
attempt to change the thinking in his own community, a change that could have
profound political effects if it is taken as seriously as the people here seem
prone to do. After hearing the King of Saudi
Arabia speak, there was a reception line in which each of us was to give our
name and shake the hand of the King. I was in one of my more irrepressible
moods, so when it was my time I broke protocol and said to King Abdullah
"I represent the many Jews in the world who wish to see cooperation
between Israelis and Palestinians and a peace that provides security and
justice for both sides (and I pointed to the Tikkun pin I was wearing which has
the Israeli flag and the Palestinian flag both with the words Peace, Justice,
Life, TIKKUN). I hope that you will use some of your huge oil-generated
billions of dollars to help Palestinians build decent housing and plumbing in
the refugee camps." By this point the people surrounding the King were
moving to push me forward, and the King merely gave me a big smile (it was
being translated for him by his US Ambassador) and I moved on into the dining
area. To my surprise, I was seated at a
table with eight members of the King's cabinet and his closest associates (I
was the only non-Muslim or non-Saudi at the table). I sat next to the Secretary
of Labor, and next to him was the Secretary of Finance, and then the others I
remember included the Secretary of Communications and one person who was
introduced as the King's main counsel and another as a close personal friend of
the King and another was one of the major corporation heads in Saudi Arabia. To
my surprise, several people knew about Tikkun and it turned out that these men
had mostly been educated in the US or England, several at Oxford, some at the
University of Southern California or at University of California. Whereas at
almost all of the other tables in the huge dining room there were several
conversations going on at the same time, these people stopped their separate
conversations and focused on me and wanted to know my perspective on American
politics and on Israel/Palestine. I told them the Tikkun perspective,
particularly the need for a new consciousness based on open-heartedness, mutual
repentance, and compassion. A few embraced this, others
argued that certainly I couldn't ask for equal repentance given that the
Palestinians had been made homeless by the 1947-49 conflict and were living in
terrible conditions. I said that it was a shame that the Saudis with all their
wealth had not done more to help the Palestinians. The Finance Minister smiled
and said that that was simply not true, but that Israel was not letting their
aid come through. I pointed out that Palestinian refugees lived in Jordan,
Syria, Egypt and Lebanon and particularly in Lebanon their conditions were
appalling and that the Saudis could rectify that. He responded by saying that
they had done more than was known, but that the particulars he was not going to
discuss. I then pointed out that Gaza and the West Bank were in the hands of
the Arabs from 1948-1967 and that their Arab hosts and the Saudis had done
nothing to improve their slum-like conditions. Several people pointed out to me
that the Palestinian leadership that existed at that time (prior to the
emergence of the Palestinian Liberation Organization) did not want to accept
that the expulsion from their homes was permanent, and hence did not want to
begin anything that would appear to be a resettling in the refugee camps.
Didn't I agree that the refugees had suffered a huge humanitarian disaster?
Yes, I said I did agree with that, but that Israelis were fearful that if
Palestinians were to return now with their millions of people, that would
eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. And I referenced my article on 'Israel at
60' in Tikkun in which I had analyzed the situation in terms of the Post
Traumatic Stress Syndrome facing both Jews from our long history of oppression
culminating in the Holocaust and the Palestinian people as a result of their
displacement for the past sixty years. My even-handedness was challenged
by some who said that certainly the suffering of the Palestinian people couldn't
be excused by reference to the suffering of Jews in Europe, since it was not
the Palestinians who had participated in the Holocaust. I replied that the
Palestinians had played an important role, along with the Saudis and other Arab
states in convincing the British to cut off immigration of Jews to Palestine.
They responded that this policy was understandable, given the explicitly stated
goal of the Zionist movement leaders to create a Jewish state in Palestine, and
thus, Palestinians feared, to exclude or evict Palestinian settlers (and as
several pointed out, Israeli revisionist historians had uncovered documents and
letters from Zionist leaders saying indeed that their intent in accepting the
UN resolution of 1947 to partition Palestine was only a first step in their
larger intent to eventually take over all of Palestine--and that goal was clear
to the Arabs as well as to the Zionist movement and accounted for their
resistance to the partition agreement). I pointed out that whatever their
fears, the reality was that they had chosen an immoral path in pushing the
British to close immigration to Jews, and that a majority of my larger family
had died in Europe during the Holocaust and might have been saved had there
been a place to escape to, and that Palestine was the nearest place in which
Jews had some historical claim. At this point the Saudis
challenged my contention that the Palestinians or Arabs had had much of an
impact on the British in their decisions. I argued that the British in the 30s
and 40s were following policies shaped by their concern for steady oil supplies
for their coming war (either with Hitler or Stalin). The Saudis responded by
telling me that they (the Saudis) were not a major source of oil for the
British and that in any event the British were a colonial power that was
shaping the policies of other Arab states, and not vice versa. I was not sure
that that was true, but then switched my line to point out that wherever
colonial authorities ruled, they always tried to set the native populations
against their minority groups, and that this is what had happened in Palestine
and more generally in the Middle East. The Jews, I argued, were the minority in
Palestine at that time, and the potential Arab revolt against colonialism had
been weakened by the distraction onto opposing Zionism. But was it a distraction or were
the Zionists really agents of colonial rule? The Saudis pointed to the Balfour
Declaration in 1917 proclaiming Britain's commitment to supporting the Jews in
establishing a state in Palestine. I argued that a. the British had no right to
determine the future of the area, since it wasn't theirs in the first place (a
point that showed the Saudis that there were indeed Jews who did not identify
with the colonialist perspective) and b. that most Jews coming to Palestine
were fleeing oppression, most form Europe but some from Arab countries. They
responded that Jews had lived in harmony with their Arab hosts until the
colonial period and the rise of Zionism. At that point, rather than pursue
that argument (I disagreed with them and would have pointed out that the
conditions were akin to apartheid for Jews in most of those countries through
much of that history), I turned instead to the larger frame of our discussion
and said, "Wouldn't it be better if we really wish to build a future of
peace that we stop trying to get a triumph on the issue of guilt? There are two
national discourses here, and each has lots of facts to back it up, but it is
futile and destructive to follow the path now being followed in which each side
tells the story as though they are the righteous victims and the other side are
the evil oppressors! Let's move beyond that to ask what we can do to build
peace now, and start by each side acknowledging that the other has a legitimate
though partial view, and that each side has sinned and gone off course." I
then explained the Jewish view of "sin" as similar to an arrow going
off course, implying that the sinner was fundamentally good, not evil, but had lost
his or her way. They seemed happy with that notion. But then they turned to the
current situation and told me how surprised and outraged they were that the
Saudi proposal to end the struggle and create peace based on a return to the
1967 borders, a proposal offered to Israel several years ago, had gotten zero
response from Israel. I responded that if they really thought that there would
be a full return to those borders, they were mistaken, because no Jew would
ever agree to give up access to the Western Wall, which was part of Jordan
before the 67 war. They thought that could be negotiated, but the point, they
said, was that they had gotten exactly ZERO RESPONSE to a gesture which they
felt should have been perceived by Israel as giving Israel the recognition that
Israel always claimed to be central to its needs. I could not justify the
Israeli government's behavior, but said that I opposed the current and past
Israeli governments since the death of Rabin precisely because they had given
up on peace and seemed more interested in holding on to the West Bank. But, I
argued, most American Jews and a large number of Israelis would accept major
territorial compromises if they really believed that peace was possible. The
Saudis said that it seemed impossible to believe that when the Saudis had made
it clear that peace was indeed possible. I responded by pointing to the PTSD
thesis coupled with the continuing fear of Israelis that they might be wiped
out by a combination of the Iranians plus the sourrounding Arab states. Incredulously,
they asked if any Jews in the US believed that that was possible. I responded
that such fears were frequently voiced in the organized Jewish community,
though many younger Jews did not share that fear. At this point, the Saudis were so
astounded they almost lost interest in the conversation. They found it
impossible to believe that anyone could believe that Israel was in any danger
of destruction. Israel, they pointed out to me, had close to two hundred
nuclear bombs--no state would dare seek to destroy Israel for fear of being
wiped off the face of the earth. Similarly, they perceived Iranian threats from
Ahmadinejad to be a joke, since everyone knew that Iran did not have any
nuclear capacity whatsoever and was unlikely to have anything in the next
decade. Many of the Saudis at the table felt that at this point they were
listening to a typical Israeli propagandist (me) and that there was no point in
continuing to talk since they believed that I knew and all Israelis and Jews
knew that there was no possibility of Israel ever getting destroyed by the weak
Arab or Islamic world, and that taking such concerns seriously were about as
rational as thinking that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In
any event, they asked what I thought they should do--was there anyone among
Israelis leaders who had the power and inclination to build peace. When I
talked about Yossi Beilin they said I had misunderstood--they wanted to know
about anyone who was likely to actually have the power to implement a peace
agreement, and I was not sure whom to suggest. They then asked me about Obama
and particularly his seeming capitulation to AIPAC immediately after securing
the Democratic nomination. I told them about the divisions in the Jewish world,
the way that the peace forces represented a majority of American Jews but were
largely without the finances or access to media to make their presence known,
and that the pro-AIPAC Democrats would likely make it difficult for Obama to
provide strong leadership on Israel/Palestine unless there emerged a powerful
grassroots force in the Jewish world and in the Christian world that would push
in a different direction. Many of them asked if that was not in part the role
of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and I affirmed that but pointed out
major problems we faced: a. lack of finances b. media power of the Jewish right
and the willingness of the liberals in the media to assume that AIPAC and the
Jewish establishment spoke for most if not all American Jews. c. turf battles that
made groups like Brit Tzedeck unwilling to cosponsor Washington lobbying with
NSP and Jewish Voices for Peace or any groups that were interfaith, the
unwillingness of Christians for Middle East Peace to align in their lobbying
with Jewish groups, the unwillingness of Jim Wallis' Sojo group to work with
the Network of Spiritual Progressives on Israel/Palestine issues, the fear that
J Street people seemed to have about getting involved with any group that might
appear too critical of Israel or even too explicitly critical of AIPAC, and the
contrast with the Jewish right which had been willing to all work together to
support AIPAC for the sake of maximizing their political power. I also
discussed the lack of political coherence of the Christian Left and their
inability to join in any effective public political action with other groups
with whom they disagreed theologically (so, for example, it was rare to see
progressive Catholics joining with progressive Protestants on Middle East
issues, or even on issues like the Global Marshall Plan), much less with Jewish
groups, except in the narrow frame of specific legislative issues on Capitol
Hill (but not in challenging the dominant political ideas that shaped American
thought on the Middle East and made Obama reluctant to challenge the
willingness of the American government to follow the lead of whoever happened
to be in power in Israel). But I also told them that all
this could change. I pointed out that Obama had been close to Tikkun for many
years, that his ideas on many issues closely aligned with the Tikkun
perspective, and that he had signaled 8 years ago to our Chicago chapter of the
Tikkun community that he was very sympathetic to our position on reconciliation
between Israelis and Palestinians. Still, I pointed out that the Clintons had
been aligned with Tikkun before they took office, but our failure to mobilize
enough public pressure on them had made it possible for AIPAC insiders in the
White House and the Democratic Party to push them far from me or Tikkun
perspectives, and the same danger existed for Obama unless the progressive
forces in all the religious and secular communities could organize a serious
and systematic alternative in every Congressional district. But how could that help, the
Saudis wanted to know. What could change the discourse in America or Israel. I
then discussed the Global Marshall Plan. Many were very positive about it, but
insisted that the initiative would have to come from the United States in the
first instance. If that happened, they felt sure that Saudi Arabia and many
others would join such an effort. They hoped that the Global Marshall Plan
would gain traction, and they fully embraced the view that security would come
through generosity more than through military domination. That was my discussion with the
Saudis. I consciously held myself back on several fronts. I felt it pointless
to argue with them about the deficiencies of this conference--the fact that,
though it was centered on the notion of "dialogue," in fact the sessions
were a series of presentations in which there was zero opportunity for dialogue
with others in the room. I several times tried to raise the issue of the de
facto exclusion of women from the dialogue, though there were some women in
attendance, but I got zero response or understanding on that. I got nowhere in
pointing out the contradiction of holding an interfaith dialogue in Spain at a
time when the Saudis themselves prohibit the practice of any other faith but
Islam inside Saudi Arabia. Many of these sessions seem empty to me precisely
because they are mere preaching about tolerance and dialogue, though the
reality in Saudi Arabia provides so little dialogue or tolerance of other
religions. And yet, I realized that that
point, though righteous, somehow missed the significance of this gathering,
which was in fact more about advancing the idea of tolerance, peace,
non-violence, mutual understanding and dialogue in the Islamic world and in
particular in the religious community in the Islamic world. The handful of
Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and others who were in attendance
here were props for this discussion, but what the King of Saudi Arabia was
doing was nevertheless of historic significance. In a previous meeting in Mecca
with Islamic religious leaders, he faced considerable opposition to his
proposal for an interfaith conference around dialogue and mutual understanding.
He had used his power and authority as the Guardian of the Sacred Mosques of
Mecca and Medina to override opposition and go forward with this conference.
Precisely because Saudi forms of Islam are perceived as the most conservative,
taking this step is certain to reverberate for decades through the Islamic
world and to be an historical marker in the process of modernization in Islam. And there is also another
dimension. The Saudis are implicitly taking religious leadership in the
struggle with a reactionary version of Islam that has emerged in Iran. Though
Iran was never mentioned, this gathering, plus the actions of the Prince of
Jordan in calling for an Islam that works in cooperation with the Western world
and with other religious communities, renouncing the "conflict of
civilizations," appears to be a major challenge to the growing appeal of
Iranian forms of Islam among young Muslims who are filled with righteous
indignation against the West in light of the devastation brought to Iraq by the
US and the UK. Finally, a word about the media.
As I listened to the Saudis at my table I realized once again what I've known
for four decades--how completely the media misrepresents who the people are
with whom the powerful in the US are at odds. I have long known that about the
Jewish media as well--I'm portrayed often as an enemy of Israel or a
self-hating Jew! And ever since the Clintons embraced my Politics of Meaning,
the American media has represented me as a New Agey thinker rather than as
someone deeply rooted in Judaism, psychology, philosophy and still learning
from all the other religious and spiritual traditions of the human race through
its history. Still, with all that, I was amazed to find myself amazed at the
humanity, intelligence, and shared commitment to rationality among all these
leaders of the Saudi regime. NO, I'm not giving up my skepticism, and no, I
have not forgotten the barbarism of some Saudi legal practices, the strong
misogyny of their culture, and the profound anti-Semitism that exists in their
society. (I want to be clear that I am not surprised that I would find
brilliant or loving people in the Islamic world. We print such people with
regularity in Tikkun. The surprise is to find them in the leadership of a
country that is reported to be the most reactionary, feudal and religiously
fanatical country in the Islamic world.) But what I was discovering at lunch is
that there is a modernizing elite that sees those reactionary aspects of their
own society as equally problematic, and hopes to change that (indicated to me
in many comments made during the two hours we sat together and which I've only
partially summarized here). I am not an advocate for the
Saudi regime, but I now see its humanity, the fundamental decency of some who
are engaged in an effort to "reform from within," and am reminded
once again of how ridiculous it is to talk about a whole society as though it
represented a single perspective or shared a single worldview, the need to work
with the most progressive elements, and the need to avoid "Othering the
Other." Another point about the media: this conference is a front page
story in most of the world, but is being largely ignored in the US media who
were notably absent from the hundreds of media covering this event. This is a
willed ignorance about the world fostered by the US media establishment. What was also clear to me in this
conversation was that these very enlightened Saudis had NEVER met or been in a
conversation with Jews who held progressive values and took those values
seriously. For them, it was an exciting revelation, just as it was exciting to
them to learn about the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives. They too
had fallen for the media distortions and for believing that the American elites
with whom they have had contact represent the democratic will of the American
people, so they were happy to be disabused of that notion. I came away with the
distinct impression that I had helped foster more positive notions about who
Americans are, who Jews are, and what Israelis are about. For that, as for many
other aspects of this set of conversations, I give thanks to God for the opportunity
that I have had to serve the causes of peace and reconciliation! Returning to the rest of the
conference would be a downer in comparison with this conversation, but I soon
realized that that too was a premature judgment. I felt richly rewarded by the
opportunities to meet and chat with many other Muslims, and to realize how safe
the place felt for us Jews even though we were a tiny minority in a hall filled
with Muslims. But the actual formal presentations also raised some important
issues and even a rather encouraging vision of the future, which I'll translate
somewhat into my frame. I mentioned above that this
conference is a significant step in the process of modernization in the Islamic
world. But of course, modernization in the West has been deeply linked to a
process of "de-mystification of the world" that we at Tikkun call
"scientism," the triumph of the worldview that the only things that
count are those that can be measured or empirically verified, and that
everything else is literally "non-sense." The result is the empty
public square, a public life devoid of values. And as I've showed in our
empirical research at the Institute for Labor and Mental Health, and explained
more fully in The Politics of Meaning and in Spirit Matters and The Left Hand
of God, this has created a spiritual crisis that is at the root of family
breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, narcissism and alienation, loneliness and a
sense of the meaninglessness of one's life that has grown to monumental
proportions. While the poverty in the under-developed world is itself a major
source of pain, one of the aspects of the West that is most resented and feared
is the power of Western culture to uproot traditional cultures to replace them
with the values of the marketplace and the demystification and scientism that
is central to capitalist enterprise. Watching the spiritual suffering and
degradation that we in the West take for granted and never connect with the
values generated by a society that measures "success" primarily in
material terms and encourages a world view of "looking out for number
one" and "me-firstism" and "values that are kept out of our
professions and out of our work world and only have a place on a weekend
religious moment but not in daily life," people in the Muslim world are
particularly concerned about this aspect of Western imperialism and are
committed to fighting it. So what was said by some of the
speakers was that the kind of modernization that should be welcomed into Islam,
and the kind of tolerance that should be an important element of Islamic
culture, should not include a tolerance for those kinds of values that shape
the culture of capitalist imperialism and are reflected in the pop culture it
has fostered. Instead, they envision a modernization that is respectful,
inclusive, and based on affirming the value of spiritual and religious
diversity, but that does not accept the secularism and the scientism of the
modern world. That, of course, is a vision
closely aligned with ours. We do not at Tikkun or in the Network of Spiritual
Progressives affirm any particular religious tradition, nor do we believe that
one must be part of some religious tradition in order to deserve our respect or
connection. But we do affirm that there is something in the spiritual worldview,
even the "spiritual but NOT religious" worldview, that is an
essential part of a fulfilled life. While that spiritual element may manifest
as play, art, music, dance, or even study of the wonders of the universe as
experienced through the study of science, it is an irreducible element that
cannot be accessed solely by scientism (though it could be by scientific
investigation). What the advanced-consciousness Muslims whose wisdom was in
full flower at this conference seem to be promising us is that the coming
spiritual renaissance of Islam may provide a foundation for precisely this kind
of tolerant, loving, and generous form of religion that becomes a beacon for
future generations who may be experiencing the crisis of spiritual emptiness of
the contemporary world but are not willing to embrace fundamentalisms of any
sort or give space to worldviews that do not include tolerance, mutual respect
for others, and a true spirit of generosity. It may be hard for many of us to
imagine a world in which Islam becomes identified with these values of love,
generosity, kindness, tolerance, social justice and peace; it would certainly
be an incredibly wonderful development. For those of us who despair about
Christianity or Judaism having gone astray so far from the loving elements in
their founders' visions that they now embody, in at least part of their
practice, exactly the opposite values from those that made these religions
catch fire in the hearts of their adherents (that may be what it means to see
the Burning Bush), the notion that Islam might be the spark that generates a
new religious revival based on mutual respect and spiritual intensity could
dramatically expand our understanding of the endless potential for God to
surprise us, un-do our conceptual certainties, and open our hearts to each
other. Rabbi Michael Lerner, July 17,
2008 Madrid, Spain Rabbi Michael
Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine www.tikkun.org, chair of the Network of
Spiritual Progressive www.spiritualprogressives.org, and author of 11 books
(including The Politics of Meaning, Healing Israel/Palestine, and The Left Hand
of God, the latter a national best seller in 2006). He is rabbi of Beyt Tikkun
synagogue in San Francisco, conducts Friday evening services in San Francisco,
and teaches Torah on Shabbat mornings in Berkeley (see www.beyttikkun.org for
schedule) and High Holiday services in San Francisco. RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org. 510 644 1200. - GuyRC See Profile I'm a Fan of
GuyRC "..."scientism,"
the triumph of the worldview that the only things that count are those that can
be measured or empirically verified, and that everything else is literally
"non-sense." The result is the empty public square, a public life
devoid of values. " Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 02:40 PM on 07/21/2008 - phasechange
See Profile
I'm
a Fan of phasechange Thank you for such an enlightened
and thoughtful article. However, let me suggest two additional lines of analysis,
one in support of your work, the other, somewhat in opposition. Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 07/21/2008 - JustAnotherScreenname
, Posted 09:24 AM on 07/21/2008 - Huffyfan See Profile I'm a Fan
of Huffyfan I do trust trust the saudis . (im
Arab and Muslim too ) Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 03:46 AM on 07/21/2008 - politicky See Profile I'm a Fan
of politicky Leaders in the Middle East would
much rather focus on problem, and have their people focus on problems brought
in by westerners (including Zionists) than attempt to change inherent porblems
in their own culture. Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 01:53 AM on 07/21/2008 - argeec See Profile I'm a Fan of
argeec I wonder how many Americans
understand, as Lerner said, that the entire Arab League has offered Israel a
peace treaty that is virtually identical to the prior US and UN proposals. Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 07/21/2008 - cheforacle
See Profile
I'm a
Fan of cheforacle Great article. I wish more people
who comment on this site would read this. it is appalling that, as a liberal, I
see so many others who claim to be liberals pigeon-hole others so easily and
fall in to the trap that, if any group or individual has ever done anything
wrong, that any and all things they profess or support must therefore be suspect. Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 11:26 PM on 07/20/2008 - RobinSeattle
See Profile
I'm
a Fan of RobinSeattle So Rabbi, did any of what you described
get into the Saudi print or electronic press? I doubt it. Saudi Arabia, at the
end of the day, is still a religious police state and your line of conversation
had your compatriots in conversation verbally tap dancing like mad to not
depart with the official line espoused by the royal family. Reply
Favorite
Flag
as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 07/20/2008 - politicky See Profile I'm a Fan
of politicky Looks like Arab News covered the
conferecne: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/my-talk-with-the-saudis-a_b_113629.html?view=print |
|||||||||
