A neocon Jew goes to Saudi Arabia...and not only lives to tell about it

But is rather impressed, too. Joshua Muravchik reports on this recent trip in this month's Commentary:

The application for a visa to Saudi Arabia asked for my religion. In inviting me to give some lectures and interviews, the American embassy in Riyadh had already suggested I answer “non-Muslim”—its standard advice to American visitors, I was told. But I did not feel comfortable with this evasion, so I put “Jewish.” My visa came through nonetheless.

He talks of meeting a young Saudi named Khaled who had studied in the United States. As Muravchik reports:

"My father would love to meet you. He is a neocon,” he said. I asked what it meant to be a Saudi neocon, and Khaled replied: “He supports you guys.”

As he continues:

I was warmly received everywhere in Saudi Arabia, though I always identified myself as a Jew and as a neoconservative. The latter term, much as at home, has become a buzzword throughout the Arab world for everything disliked about U.S. policy. (An interviewer for an Islamist news organization in Egypt once put it to me: “‘neoconservative’ sounds to our ears like ‘terrorist’ sounds to yours.”) But Arabs value politeness, and to avoid confrontation they often say, “We like the American people, just not your government.” I always tried to block this retreat from controversy by asserting that I was one of those Americans who supported the very policies of my government that Arabs were angry about. Nonetheless, interviews with me in the Saudi media were respectful, fair, and accurately reported.

At my talks, people argued with me sharply, but invariably finished by saying that they were grateful to have gained a better understanding of American views. Since freedoms of speech and assembly are severely constrained, some of my talks took place in private homes. At one such salon, with a large and relatively heterogeneous group in attendance, I was pressed about why it was legitimate for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran. One man, bedecked in white robes and brandishing a carved walking stick and a gold tooth, described Israel as a “cancer” made up of the “garbage of Europe.” I told the group that this man personified Israel’s reason for wanting nuclear weapons: it alone faced neighbors opposed to its existence. For the rest of the evening I pounded on the guy, and when it was over he smiled, laughed,
apologized, and told me he had not really meant what he said.

And, finally, regarding Saudi Arabia's notoriously bad record with respect to press freedom, on this issue too, Muravchik was also pleasantly surprised:

The progress in freedom of expression was greater than I expected. True enough, I read no criticism whatsoever of the royal family or the basic system of government. And the English papers I read were probably freer than the Arabic press. But they did keep up a drumbeat of criticism on the subject of women’s rights. They also carried investigative reports and stories of societal self-criticism. Their opinion pages offered a range of views, mostly from American and British sources. And even their news coverage of Israel, to my surprise, could be reasonably fair. (For reasons one can guess, the Arab News often ran headlines biased against Israel atop stories that were objective and balanced.)

To hear what else he has to say about the dress code, gender segregation, social life, and even why he didn't go to chop-chop square, read the whole thing.

Clash of civilizations?

London Mayor Ken Livingstone debates leading American "neocon" "Islamophobe" also known as Islamic history scholar Daniel Pipes

Yesterday, London's Mayor Ken Livingstone faced off against eminent Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes, sometimes described as an “Islamophobe,” "racist," or "neocon" by his critics, in the opening debate of “A World Civilisation or a Clash of Civilisations,” a conference hosted by the Greater London Authority.

In his remarks, Mayor Livingstone said he was hosting the event because he wanted to avoid repeating the “tragedy” of the last century – that is to say, the Cold War, which he suggested without bothering to offer evidence, was a sinister plot designed by a small group of Americans who were intent on world domination.

Mr. Livingstone then went on to regret Western hegemony in general in the modern period, blaming it on slavery and the discovery of America, as opposed to say, the enlightenment or industrial revolution.

The mayor did take pains to reject the notion that he was a multicultural absolutist by affirming that not all cultural norms are acceptable, pointing out that even he could see the error in cannibalism or female genital mutilation.

It was noteworthy the mayor did not take this opportunity to promote his own personal beliefs, as he has in the past, suggesting that they are so morally superior that his fellow Londoners should emulate his example and not flush the toilet after urinating (for example).

While the mayor seemed to relish pointing out various Western mistakes and failings, perhaps to relieve himself of his white man's burden, he did decline to call the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon a "war criminal" this time, though he did say he thought the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake. Again he blamed this decision, made by the United Nations, on sinister forces in the U.S. government.

Given that the mayor is a noted leftist who plans to use London taxpayers' money to celebrate 50 years of Cuban dictatorship under Fidel Castro, it did strike this blogger as unevenhanded to say the least, that Mr. Livingston did not acknowledge the key role the Soviet Union played in the UN decision to recognize Israel, and well, the Cold War.

Dr. Pipes in his remarks, rejected the notion of a clash of civilizations and said that what he saw taking place was a battle between civilization and barbarism. He went on to say that in his mind, civilization was the place where freedom and the rule of law prevail, and that it was not the exclusive province of any culture, religion, or race.

Although Dr. Pipes refused to vilify Islam, even citing a verse from the Koran to support his argument that civilization was well within the purview of Muslims, he did say that he thinks that today's barbaric enemy is radical Islamism, or the ideology that would impose Islamic law on everyone, including non-Muslims.

Dr. Pipes rejects sharia as a basis for law in civilized society because given the way today's radical Islamists interpret Islamic law, this would privilege Muslims above non-Muslims, men above women, condemn homosexuals and apostates to death, and call for the stoning of adulterous women, among other details.

If Mayor Livingstone seemed intent on promoting London, and Britain in general as a multicultural success story, Dr. Pipes countered that because so many Britons have participated in terror plots around the world, citing some 15 instances, the reality was the opposite: One could even make the case that because of this history, Britain should be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

If Mayor Livingstone did not elect to call his invited guest Dr. Pipes a racist or an Islamophobe himself, his debate partner, Councillor Salma Yaqoob of Birmingham, had no trouble doing so, even if this meant distorting the American scholar's remarks and extensive written record. For example, Councillor Yaqoob identified Dr. Pipes as a presidential advisor and proponent of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, assertions that as Dr. Pipes pointed out, have no basis in fact.

Councillor Yaboob, a member of George Galloway's Respect Party, delivered her remarks in what this blogger has to describe as a diatribe. Her shrill, demagogic manner contrasted sharply with her otherwise pleasant and fashionable demeanor. Dressed in a figure-flattering black pantsuit, the British politician displayed panache in the way she tied her colorful silk headscarf or hijab, the headscarf some Muslim women like to wear to signal their piety in public.

Dr. Pipes' debating partner, Douglas Murray, the 27 year-old author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, pointed out that Councillor Yaqoob entered British politics when she spoke out publicly in defense of the eight Britons who were convicted in 1999 of plotting to bomb Western targets in Yemen.

After the 7/7 bombings in London, as Murray went on to recall, Councillor Yaqoob seemed to condone the bombings when she characterized them as a response to Britain's Iraq War policy. As she was described in the official conference materials, she is also "a leading national figure in Britain's anti-war movement."

When a man from the audience indicated that his son had been killed in the 7/7 bombings and asked Councillor Yaqoob who exactly she thought these "reprisals" were supposed to target, she declined to respond, as did Mayor Livingstone, who has espoused similar views, for example in a BBC interview shortly after the attacks.

Gavin Esler, the BBC newsman who chaired the panel, ended the debate by quipping that he hoped press coverage of the event would go beyond the obvious headline that Mayor Livingstone had finally taken a stand against cannibalism.

Correction: It turns out that the man who I thought indicated his son had been killed on 7/7 was Sir Martin Gilbert, Winston Churchill's official biographer. What Sir Gilbert was really saying was that his son, along with thousands of others, was one of the intended targets of these "reprisals."