Now the Letters in the NYTimes:
To the Editor:
Prince Turki al-Faisal, in “Land First, Then Peace” (Op-Ed, Sept. 13), presents a wish list of further one-sided territorial concessions as a precondition for Saudi recognition of Israel.
The fact is that most Israelis are not wedded to the settlements, but after 16 years of negotiations and subsequent withdrawals coinciding with waves of terror and war, the Israeli public (especially the young) is rightfully cynical about the value of more pullbacks.
If, however, Saudi Arabia, as the “de facto leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds,” would publicly come forth and recognize Israel, and acknowledge its raison d’être as the Jewish national homeland in the Middle East, it would be amazed at Israel’s flexibility.
Now is actually the perfect time to emulate the Egyptian peacemaker and “do a Sadat” with Israel. After 60 years of rejection, it’s up to Saudi leaders to “just do it.”
Marco Greenberg
New York•
To the Editor:
Prince Turki al-Faisal’s reference to Saudi Arabia as a kingdom holding itself to “higher standards of justice and law,” and therefore unable to discuss peace with Israel under current conditions, is particularly ironic. Israeli policy has its problems, yet Israel is ultimately a liberal parliamentary democracy where citizens are free to choose their politics and religious confession.
Saudi Arabia, by contrast, is an autocratic state, with power concentrated in the hands of one family. It is a state that treats its female population as third-class citizens, brutalizes its minority Shiite population, and punishes political and religious dissent with public torture and beheadings. The prince’s relations should put their own house in order before lecturing other nations about “higher standards.”
Scott Platton
West Windsor, N.J.•
To the Editor:
Prince Turki al-Faisal doesn’t mention another possible obstacle to Sadat-like reciprocal peacemaking visits by Saudi and Israeli leaders: the Saudi law banning visits to Mecca by non-Muslims.
Saudi Arabia’s record of religious intolerance and human rights violations belies its representative’s assertion that its holding itself to “higher standards of justice and law” qualifies it to lecture Israel on international law and immorality.
Daniel Wolf
Teaneck, N.J.
No comments:
Post a Comment