Jewish Attachment to Israel

I read the report “US Jewish Attachment to Israel Waning: Poll” (March 6) with great interest. I am an American Sephardic Jew with a Muslim son-in-law. We are very sympathetic toward the Palestinians in our extended family, even those in the military. We also greatly dislike the tactics of both Netanyahu and Sharon in Israel. We would very much like to see a truly independent Palestinian State and a truly independent Israel — independent of United States’ influences. This may not be the majority view, but indeed, with each incident, it is becoming more common among us Jews here in the US.

Marion J. Rojas, United States published 11 March 2005

Jewish Attachment to Israel [2]

The article was totally wrong. The attachment is not waning. The Jewish connection to Israel is so strong that the United States should be called the United States of Israel. The Israeli-Americans control the US government, 12 billion dollars in aid, our military (which invaded Iraq for Israel’s protection), and our domestic politics. Heck, you can’t even call a Jew a Jew without the ADL and AIPAC attacking you financially and physically. American-Jews in the US care more for Israel than the US.

Brian L. Nolen, United States published 11 March 2005

Time for Vision

For any conservative society that believes that its customs represent the sum total of its culture, religion and identity, any change — be it adding anything new or giving up anything old — is a scary prospect. Its members will fight it with everything in their power. What men and women of understanding and vision, whose responsibility it is to lead, should do is not demonize them, but reason with them — and also not let them set the agenda.

These are the people who change their societies without creating bloodshed and bitterness. King Faisal was such a leader. When he ordered the establishment of girls’ schools, there were many people who opposed the idea of educating women. But he disregarded the views and went ahead. As a result, we now have the best-educated female population in the region.

The time for another such decision has come with regard to allowing women to drive. The government has to face the reality and take a decision based on what would benefit the country and its people. Societies that march forward cannot be guided by men who look backward.

We have hundreds of thousands of women who are educated, want to — and what is more, need to — work. Now that there are plans to expand the job opportunities for women, opening new areas of employment for them to enter, the authorities have to consider their need to go to work. The salary they draw will not be more than a couple of thousands of riyals a month. If they have to pay SR1,000 for a driver, we will be condemning them to a life of work that does not give them any net income.

Further, the entry of such a work force into the market will increase the demand for foreign drivers — who will take out of the country billions of riyals that they receive as salary. That money, if kept in the country, can be used to train women in job skills.

There will be harassment in the beginning. But it will disappear when the novelty wears off and boys realize that their sisters are also on the road driving cars and they too will face the same fate unless harassment stops. There is no need to worry about men and women meeting within the bounds of decency and Islam’s code of conduct.

In fact, when they have the opportunity to do that, all this chasing and harassment will go away.

Rashid Alhomaid, Tucson, Arizona, US published 11 March 2005

Time for Vision [2]

It is because of social restrictions that women are not allowed to drive cars. However, I find it baffling that Saudis, whose love for their wives and children is deep, entrust the lives of their loved ones to men from Africa and Asia whose driving skills are far below the minimum.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Who loves our children more and who will be more interested in their safety — the lady who gave them birth or an employee from a foreign land? And yet, families in Saudi Arabia are forced to depend on strangers to transport their women and children around because allowing women to move around without depending on a male may offend Saudi machismo — by forcing men to accept that women may be safer drivers than women.

Such an attitude is understandable. But that should not be allowed to dictate this society’s future. The reality around us should show these men that women cannot be denied their rights. Let us wake up to the fact that in today’s world, limiting our reference to their ability to take control of the wheel, for women are commercial and military pilots and have been astronauts, is absurd. Respect the lady you love and trust to raise your children, and grant her the dignity of freedom.

Sandy Mitchell, Riyadh published 11 March 2005

Time for Vision [3]

The problem you are describing is with males, not females. Everyone knows this, but females are still the ones whose rights are denied. I lived in Saudi Arabia for a year-and-a-half. I can’t tell you how much difference the ability to drive a car makes in your life. It is the difference between dependence, and independence. The latter is so sweet.

Ann Hutton, United States published 11 March 2005

Burden and Benefit

I, a Saudi working woman, totally agree with Khaled Al-Sulaiman’s views on the Jeddah Economic Forum when he asked “... Is It Worth the Cost?” (Local Press, March 5). What did an ordinary Saudi citizen gain from the forum? The fees to attend were $750. How many of us could afford that?

What we ordinary women need is a good recreational facility where we can go after work, and other places for us to go during the day — a library, walking paths, exercise rooms, swimming pools, simple green lawns to relax on and the ordinary pleasures ordinary people can afford. What did all the lectures the speakers delivered tell us that we did not already know? We have paid them huge amounts to come to Jeddah and speak and have spent fortunes on accommodating them and their entourages in five-star hotels, on their security and other comforts. It was a burden that we have borne without deriving any benefit from it.

S. Husain Kareem, Jeddah published 11 March 2005

Democracy and Oil

President Bashar Assad of Syria made the right decision when he, in consultation with his Lebanese counterpart, fixed a timeframe for the Syrian forces to withdraw to their common border. The forces had entered Lebanon at the request of the Arab League as part of the deal that put an end to the civil war tearing that nation apart.

Now that the Lebanese feel that they do not need an outside force to keep peace, it is time for Syria to leave. It will help the Lebanese people to have free and fair elections since it will reassure those elements who feared that the presence of foreign troops in their land would influence their outcome.

However, what came through loud and clear from the recent events is the double standard the United States is applying with regards to the affairs of the Middle East. George Bush has been screaming for Syria to withdraw immediately and completely from Lebanon.

No one can quarrel with the substance of the demand, though many resent the tone. But why is Bush, so very outraged by the very idea of occupation, not demanding Israel’s “immediate and complete withdrawal of its troops” from the Golan Heights? There is no doubt that it is Syrian land occupied by Israel. And can Bush use the same tone that he used when he was lambasting Syria?

Bush’s claim that his invasion of Iraq was motivated purely by his desire to bring democracy to that country begs a few questions: When is he going to do it for African countries? And to China and North Korea? Or is he not interested in them because they have no oil?

Mohammed Abdul Hadi, Alkhobar published 11 March 2005

Role of Mutawwas

In his letter “Women’s Veil” commenting on the role of mutawwas (March 6), Leigh Vernier suggested a question that our society must ask itself: “Does Saudi Arabia need an organization like the mutawwa?”

I, as a Saudi, think that we do. But first, before they are let loose on the people, there must be many reforms in its organizational setup, operational style, its method of staff selection and training, and most importantly in its authority.

Many of those who are on the road, supposedly on a mission of educating people on Islamic practices, are not themselves educated — either on Islamic behavior or any other decent behavior. Evidently, they don’t deserve the authority they have been given.

Those who have seen them in action know how destructive they can be. Most of them use violence for trivial things. By the way, I can’t agree with Vernier that they practice gender discrimination by, as he suggested, not castigating “men whose dress style might give cause for offense.” My experience is that they harass men more than women. For instance, if they catch boys flirting, or suspect them of that, they whip them three times in public, in full view of all. Women do not get this treatment. All they can do to women is to talk or shout or curse; but with men, all options are open — including physical violence.

For independent verification of this claim, Vernier can ask any Saudi young man who is dressed like a foreigner or has cut his hair in a manner that the mutawwa does not like; most of them will give him this same answer. When I was 16, I had two ribs broken because they suspected that I was a potential flirter — because of my “long hair” which, by the way, was not long at all.

I hope someone in the government or outside who has the authority or influence to change things reads this and does something about it. This is a plea from a 20-year-old Saudi who wants the best for his nation.

Almasy D., Jeddah published 11 March 2005