What's new

Saudi Arabia, Zionism, Peace and the Palestinian Cause


Mar 16, 2011
The attempts to destroy the Palestinian Cause have been on the drawing board of the Al Saud’s alliance with Zionism and the West for at least 63 years. Today, not only are they fighting against the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to resist occupation, they are doing everything in their power to prevent them from returning to their indigenous land in favour of Israel.

Established as a kingdom without an independent strategic plan or a sense of nationalism, Saudi Arabia has sought to destabilize Billad el-Cham[1] in order to undermine the Palestinian cause in favour of Zionism and the West. Indeed, since the occupation of Palestine in 1948 the kingdom has persevered with it mission to strengthen Zionism by inciting disputes between rival groups. This has had the effect of destabilising the region so that Zionism and Israel’s occupation of the territory of Billad el-Cham continue, though Riyadh disguises its activities and policies under the banner of Islam, peace and its relationship with the West. Today, the mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to strengthen Zionism continues, this being accomplished by undermining popular regional and national resistance movements, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, in order to destroy their confidence and their willingness to resist Israel’s Zionist projects. This paper seeks to shed light on Saudi efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause for the sake of Israel through the propagation of myths, by destroying all forms of resistance, and by instigating peace initiatives which it knows will ultimately be ineffective.

This year (2011) marks the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba, the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist movement.[2] However, not all Arab countries have resisted Zionist projects in Palestine, notable among them being Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Al Saud have created the myth that the Saudis have used their position as an oil supplier, as a valuable friend and ally of Western nations, and as the protectors of the most important Islamic sites, Mecca and Medina, to help liberate Palestine. Saudi Arabia’s message to Arab people and to Muslims everywhere is that the kingdom is acting in support of Palestine and its displaced population. Additionally, the kingdom has fostered the notion that it is not in conflict with the establishment of Israel in Palestine and is willing to do everything in its power to restore peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is argued here that these messages have been accepted uncritically by the media, and this situation has served the House of Saud – as well as Zionism – very effectively. However, many (or most) Palestinians have resisted the message very effectively. Indeed, research into the events of the past 60 years or more reveal a very different situation from the reports provided in the media, and it is evident that there has been a high degree of on-going Saudi cooperation with Israel. Indeed, Saudi Arabia negotiated with the British Foreign Office and with Churchill, expressing its willingness to accept openly the Jewish claim to Palestine in return for Britain withholding support from its Hashemite rivals, and in doing so the Saudis ignored calls by King Ghazi of Iraq to form a common Arab front to defend Palestine. Then, as events unfolded during 1948 Saudi Arabia remained on the sidelines and refused to contribute forces to liberate Palestine. Furthermore, when the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ended, the kingdom withheld financial support from the Egyptian and Jordanian forces still occupying parts of Palestine, and it made every effort to prevent Syria from uniting with Iraq to create a military counterweight to Israel.The kingdom also refused to contemplate the possible use of oil to pressure the US into a more even-handed Palestinian policy.

Since 1948 Saudi conspiracies against the Palestinian cause have continued through secret meetings and communications between Saudi government officials and princes and the Israelis. According to statesmen, senior military officers and former intelligence officers, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, has maintained regular contact with Israel since at least 1990. Moreover, evidence indicates that such contacts occurred much earlier; for example, in 1976 the Saudi government secretly sent a letter, via Tunisian Foreign Minister, Mohammed Masmoudi, to Israel offering a large sum of money in return for withdrawing from the occupied territories.[4]

Saudi efforts to destroy the Palestinian cause even entailed military plans. Accordingly, in 2009 when the Gaza attack occurred, Saudi Arabia was in support of Israel, and repeatedly met the chief of Mossad to plan an attack on Iran, the main supporter of Hamas, the most influential anti-Israeli movement in the occupied land. Similarly, during the conflict along the Israel- Lebanon border in 2006, the Saudis allegedly contacted the Israelis, the top-selling Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot reporting that Israel and Saudi Arabia had been conducting secret negotiations.[5] It appears, then that while Hezbollah was fighting for the interests of both Lebanon and Palestine – and for all Arab countries – the Saudis were conspiring against it by collaborating with Israel.

Secret meetings and military planning between the Saudis and the Israelis have not been the only conspiracies to undermine the Palestinian cause. For instance, in 1958 the Saudis endeavoured to put an end to unity plans between Iraq and Jordan after a pro-Nasser coup d’état succeeded in overthrowing Iraq’s Hashemite monarchy. The Hashemite had long been the strongest traditional Arab force, but they were displaced when Ibn Saud forced them from Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925. Then in 1921 the British placed Faisal on the throne in Jordan, and shortly afterwards, in 1923, granted Abdullah control of Iraq. These Hashemite princes were outsiders, but the British used religious differences to justify their actions to the Arab people by asserting that the Hashemite lineage could be traced back to Muhammad. They also worked hard to put an end to the Syrian-Egyptian union (described at the time as the United Arab Republic) which lasted from 1958 until 1961.[6]

The secret relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel has not been intended to help the Palestinian people nor is it to maintain stability and peace in the region. Instead, it has sought to increase the threat of terrorism, a situation which is favourable both to Israel and the House of Saud. Indeed, their relationship can be considered to be lower than that between al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the differences between the two are akin to the differences between the act of war and terrorism. Both have supported terror and war to justify their expansionism. Saudi Arabia has used Islam and its wealth to further its cause. Israel has used Saudi Arabia’s wealth, Islam, its military superiority, and its contacts with the West to achieve its objectives.

Thus, the interaction between the Saudi royal family and the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance has dangerously strengthened anti-secular and national movements in Billad el-Cham. Also it has deepened the divisions that emerged during the period of colonial rule in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Indeed, events show that the Saudi royal family has stood against Syrian nationalism and the liberation of Palestine in order to strengthen Saudi-style religious movements.[7] However, what now concerns the Saudis is the threat that Syrian nationalism can cause to the existence of the royal family and its Wahhabi mission within Billad el-Cham. Similarly, what worries Israel and the West is the threat that nationalism can cause to the existence of the State of Israel.

Unlike the Saudis, who have never realised that Zionism constitutes a threat both to Billad el-Cham and to the kingdom itself, the people of Billad el-Cham have seen the emergence of Israel as a real threat to the security and stability of the entire Middle East. This danger lay in the Zionist endeavour to establish an exclusively Jewish state in Billad el-Cham based on the claim that the Jewish people had an ancient, inherent and inalienable right to Palestine.[8] This endeavour has been founded on the belief that the Jews constitute a nation, yet such a belief is unwarranted because the Jews are very diverse racially, socially, and culturally.[9] Indeed, for the liberation of Palestine in particular, and the existence of Billad el-Cham in general, the Zionist threat cannot be denied. Zionist Jews have claimed an historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine even though they are not descendants of the original inhabitants of the country.[10] Historically, the Jews, or the Israelites, arrived in the land of Canaan as immigrants and they then lived with the Canaanites. However, there was never peaceful coexistence between them and the Philistines, who also came to the land of Canaan almost contemporaneously with them. The Israelites eventually disappeared from Palestine after their deportation by the Romans following their second revolt in AD 132-5. Moreover, the Jews who migrated to Palestine in the twentieth century showed no disposition to share the country or to coexist with the Palestinians. Rather, they were determined to realize the political ambitions defined by the World Zionist Organization, to create an exclusively Jewish state.[11]

Today, like the West, the Saudis continue to do everything in their power to strengthen Zionism and weaken Syrian nationalism. Within Billad el-Cham this is continuing to this day; Israel is using similar tactics in order to justify its wars against the Palestinians, Lebanese and the Syrians in the occupied territories while the Saudis, like the West, have done little to end the crises by putting a stop to Israel’s step-by-step expansionism. However, these policies are having an impact on the behaviour of Muslim sects, on radical organizations, and on US-backed political parties within Billad el-Cham. Similarly they are affecting the behaviour of the Zionists and Saudi Arabia. For example, Israel and the US are using Saudi Arabia’s influence in the Persian Gulf to destabilize Iran. However, there may be unforeseen consequences for these policies will impact on the security of Saudi Arabia itself and not just Iran.

Using Iran as an Excuse to Weaken the Palestinian Cause

Today, the Saudi royal family continues the policy of Ibn Saud in harming the Palestinian cause, although the Palestine question remains important for Saudi policy-makers. This is so not because of the sensitivities of the Palestinian crisis but because of growing Iranian influence in the occupied land. This may explain why Saudi Arabia is opposing the Iranian-backed democratically elected anti-Israel Sunni government led by Hamas while supporting the unpopular Fatah government led by Mahmud Abbas. Indeed, Saudi officials have repeatedly stated that Iranian support for Hamas has widened the rift with Fatah and hampers a resumption of peace talks.

This situation helps explain why, during a meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in February 2010, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal expressed support for United Nation sanctions against Iran because of Iran’s military support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Foreign Minister commented:

We see the issue [Iran's nuclear program] in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat … So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution [sanctions].

However, by June, as the UN Security Council passed a new round of sanctions against Iran, The Times in London published a report stating that:

Defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

At this point it is relevant to note that Zionism has been successful in influencing policies and events in Saudi Arabia. It has been successful in convincing the Saudi royal family that Iran is a threat to their existence and that the royal family needs to co-operate with Israel to ensure the kingdom’s safety. Indeed, the Saudis have apparently accepted the view that they need Israel as a back-up in any future confrontation with Iran. Israel is still considered to be an enemy in the eyes of Arab and Muslim people, and though Iran is a Muslim country and shares similar values and interests with Arabs nevertheless Saudi Arabia still favours Israel. This is evident today. At present, Saudi policy regarding Iran is aligned with that of Israel, and both are sectarian in nature and publically political. A Saudi/ Sunni war against the Shias would achieve Israel’s aim of destroying Iran’s growing power, but from an Israeli standpoint such a conflict would be to the benefit of Zionism which is hostile to both Shias and Sunnis.

Today, Saudi policy makers are keeping pressure on Iran regardless of the fact that Iran is seeking to counter-balance Israel’s hegemony in the region. It is widely believed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but this seems to ignore the fact that Israel is already a nuclear state. There is no evidence yet that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction, however Saudi Arabia chooses to insist that Iran is a threat to the region and in so doing is ignoring Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

It seems that Iran’s enmity toward Saudi Arabia has a more immediate strategic cause. Iran is not going to forgive Saudi Arabia’s political stand with the US against Iran’s nuclear interests, nor is it going to forget Saudi Arabia’s support for Saddam Hussein’s forces in the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 1980s. Indeed, Tehran’s main hostility stems from the belief that Saudi Arabia is covertly co-operating with its enemies on three fronts. Firstly, the government in Tehran believes that the Saudis collaborated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the abduction of an Iranian nuclear scientist in 2009. Iran accused Saudi Arabia of assisting the CIA abduction of Shahram Amiri while he was in Mecca, this view being confirmed by Amiri who stated on his return from the US that the CIA has kidnapped him with the help of Saudis. Secondly, the Iranian regime suspects that the Saudis have agreed to support Israel in planning a’ ‘surgical strike’ against Iran’s nuclear facility, and thirdly, that the Saudi government has been providing ideological support for Iran’s main domestic terrorist group, the Jundallah.

Unworkable Peace Process

Soon after the events of 9/11 King Abdullah negotiated the so-called ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ to avoid criticism from the West because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. The initiative was produced in the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut, but in the subsequent ten years Israel has refused to comply, and Saudi Arabia has taken no steps to implement it.

In the light of these events it is reasonable to question whether Saudi Arabia could solve the crises through peace negotiation and whether Saudi Arabia is able to pressure Israel to make peace. It is argued here that there is no evidence to suggest that Israel is dedicated to peace in the region. Nor is there evidence that Saudi Arabia would cease supporting Zionism or reduce its loyalty to the US, especially since the US itself is under Zionist control.

Theoretically, peace is represented in contemporary literature as a ‘liberal peace’: that is, an institutional peace to provide international governance and guarantees, a constitutional peace to ensure democracy and free trade, and a civil peace to ensure freedoms and rights within society.[16] However, these distinctions mean little to people living under occupation and in refugee camps.

But in reality, peace with Israel means recognizing the Zionist state as a sovereign political entity, something Palestinians refuse to accept. Accordingly, the peace process is not welcomed in Billad el-Cham in general and Palestine in particular. For the people of the region there are deep disagreements about the issue of peace with Israel. Additionally, there is a growing awareness among the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East that Israel has become firmly entrenched, but despite this there has not been a commensurate shift in support for Israel’s presence; to the contrary, opposition to Israel remains as high as ever.[17]

It is proposed here that a peace arrangement between Israel and its neighbours would legitimize injustice because millions of displaced Palestinians still live in refugee camps abroad, a state of affairs in violation of basic human rights. Although much is heard about the plight of the Jews in the holocaust, little is said about the Palestinians who fled from their homeland. It is clear that Israelis have no intention of living peacefully with the Palestinians, and evidence of this can be seen in the relentless extension of settlements on Palestinian land. This process is exacerbating the refugee problem by forcing the remaining Palestinian inhabitants to cross into Jordan. Despite this worsening situation Saudi Arabia is doing nothing except encourage Mahmud Abbas to continue peace talks with Israel and by supporting the Oslo Agreement, although the kingdom’s rulers know that the Oslo process is unlikely to contribute to a lasting peace. In 2002, King Abdullah proposed peace in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Israel did not accept his initiative. Five years later (in March 2007) that proposal was revived, but, as before, it produced no tangible results, and Saudi Arabia was still unwilling and unable to force Israel’s hand on the matter. Instead, the Saudis are now cooperating with Israel to prepare an air strike against Iran, a new fabricated enemy to replace the original enemy of all Arabs, Israel.

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians may never be achievable regardless of the efforts of the Israelis and Saudis because Israel has no roots in the region. Palestine has been occupied, it has been renamed Israel, and the original inhabitants have been forced to flee their homeland. Consequently, Israel can never really achieve a lasting peace with people who they have displaced. Some may argue that Israel has signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, countries with whom they now enjoy relatively peaceful relationships. But are those treaties sustainable? It is argued that they are not because while Governments may sign treaties those arrangements may never be accepted by the public, especially after so many years of bloodshed and injustice. Public feelings on the matter are becoming more evident today in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere, where anti-Israeli slogans are appearing more often. Can the Saudi government continue to resist (or ignore) rising public sentiment today, and can its petrodollars, allies, and political advocates, both internal and external, protect the world from growing sectarianism, extremism and terrorism?

Today, although Palestinians have not forgotten the lessons of military power and occupation, Saudi Arabia still believes that peace with Israel is achievable and that Israel itself is serious about making peace and ensuring justice. It is insisting that the Palestinian (and Lebanese) resistance to Israel must be halted in order to resume peace negotiations. Saudi Arabia’s rulers have repeatedly witnessed Israel’s rejection of many offers of peace and Israel’s recourse to violence and expansion of settlement, yet they insist that the Palestinians must negotiate peace with Israel.

Meanwhile, injustice can result in more violence, propelling people to acts of resistance in order to gain justice. In the eyes of the international community, Israel has persistently violated international law which requires it to recognise the rights of the indigenous Palestinian people. The occupation is illegal, the Palestinians have been confined to small areas in Gaza and the West Bank and have remained under siege, and displaced people have been prevented from returning to their native land – all acts being condemned by natural and human laws. In the meantime, Israel, protected by the US, has caused many Palestinian deaths and condemned many others to a life of agony and despair. Thus, a just settlement would require an independent and an honest broker, Western or non-Western, but can this happen?

So far the international community has been unable and unwilling to solve the crisis in Palestine. Similarly, it has demonstrated unwillingness to challenge the Saudis for their tacit support for the status quo. Indeed, for the American government the occupation of Arab and Muslim territory, and the displacement of its population are convenient ways to force the hand of the Saudi, Arab, and Muslim people.

In summary, this paper has examined the Saudi-Zionist efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause. While these policies have succeeded in some places, they have failed to be effective in Palestine, as well as in other places in Billad el-Cham. Failure to win over the hearts and minds of people in the region has caused the Saudi-Israeli-Western policy makers to forge what they called “the New Middle East”. But for this new vision to succeed will entail the destruction of regimes regardless of whether these regimes are secular or Islamic. This also requires the destruction of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and of leaders who are willing to stand in opposition.

The Saudi-Zionist alliance deepens. Back in 2006, the Saudi royal family endorsed the Israeli war on Lebanon. I looked at Saudi media yesterday, and it is very clear that the Saudi-Hariri media are supporting (implicitly because they fear their own people) the Israeli war on Gaza. If you look at the Hariri rag, Al-Mustaqbal, for example, they only showed pictures of dead Hamas military men, and not one of the civilians killed and injured during the Israeli attack. The mouthpiece of Prince Salman, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, printed an editorial by its editor in which he blamed the Palestinians for their ordeal. I usually don't link to the Saudi sleaze website, Elaph, but this one will please MEMRI and itis titled: "The Israeli Army Smashes the Agents of Iran in Gaza." All the babies and children killed and children are agents of Iran.

Saudi-Zionist alliance: the love story blossoms
So this Arabic website brags that an Arab professor was "chosen" as one of the "best teachers" of Middle East studies. The choice, however, is by Campus Watch: this is like being selected as a top contender for a beauty pageant by the Saudi mufti. This (ostensible) professor of Arabic and Islamic studies writes for the Hariri rag, Al-Mustaqbal, and is promoted by the website of Al-Arabiyya (the private station of King Fahd's brother-in-law). Campus Watch said that she teaches Arabic and Islamic studies at Georgetown University. So I asked Ahmad Dallal (currently provost at AUB, and formerly chair of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown) and he told me that he never heard of her. But the very link that is provided by Campus Watch does not lead to a reference to her on the website. Somebody is lying here. (thanks Z.)

More on the Saudi-Zionist alliance
"The 54-year-old Israeli was already at the club in his second spell working as director of football. He will take charge of Saturday's home game with Manchester United in that role as his work permit needs to be changed before he can become manager." (thanks Mohamed)

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

Pity - the the professional Wahabi parrot is running out of its brain

Wahabi occupied Saudi Arabia possesses at least a quarter of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, and has always been willing to dance to Zionist America’s tune, working to preserve the stability of oil prices on the international market. In times of crisis, the Saudis have generally responded to America’s exhortations to use their vast oil-producing capacity to make up shortfalls, or to bring pressure to bear on fellow OPEC members to limit production cuts.

Popular pressure on the Wahabi corrupt rulers because of the Intifada 2000 has compounded the erosion of the House of Saud’s political and religious legitimacy that began with American troops entering the Arabian Peninsula in 1990. Military cooperation with the US has always had the potential of bringing about cracks in edifice of popular legitimacy of Saudi rule. The legitimacy of the Saudi regime is rooted in Wahhabism, which postulates a political system based on power being divided between the ulama and the ruling family. Seeking support from non-Muslims against fellow Muslims is one of a host of acts that nullify one’s Islam (‘nawaqid al-Islam’), according to Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), the founder of Wahhabism.

Close cooperation with the US has always undermined the Saudi regime’s Islamic credentials (such as they are). Before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi-US defence relationship was described as "over the horizon," that is maintaining no military presence in the kingdom, despite forces being stationed in other parts of the Gulf. The decision of king Fahd to allow American troops into the kingdom in August 1990 transformed this relationship. But Fahd’s decision increased popular pressure on the Saudi royal family as never before. Critics point to the irony that the Saudi rulers claim to defend the sanctuaries in Makkah and Medina, while in reality they were helpless against Saddam without the unbelievers’ aid. Usama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qa’ida, had called repeatedly for the expulsion of "infidel" forces from the land of Islam’s holiest sites – but never mention the plight of Palestinians until 1990s.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

Former US president Jimmy Carter’s doctrine (1980) was the ledge to use US troops to keep Wahabi regime in power and to intervene in the Gulf to protect what his administration considered ‘our oil’. There was no threat to Wahabi ‘royals’ from Ba’athist Iraq or Islamic Iran at that time, so it was clear that the US government was pledged to protect its corrupt puppet ‘royal family’ from overthrow by its citizen. Carter also pledged to intervene if US oil companies were threatened with loss of control over oil production in the Gulf.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

US president Roosevelt declared in 1943 that "the defence of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defence of the United States." For the past six decades this strategic relationship has been based on a commonality of interests: the Saudis guarantee the US access to a steady supply of cheap oil in exchange for guaranteed security from external military threat.

The Americans have benefited tremendously from Saudi oil largesse. For years Saudi Arabia helped to finance the US budget deficit by buying American treasury bills and bonds. Members of the Saudi royal family have donated generously to American causes and charities: in 1985 Fahd donated US$1 million to ‘first lady’ Nancy Reagan’s "Just Say No" anti-drugs campaign; in 1989 he gave $1 million to a literacy campaign launched by first lady Barbara Bush.

Saudi Arabia has also been the American armament-industry’s best customer. It has been active in the US Foreign Military Sales programme since the 1950s, acquiring combat vehicles, naval vessels, small arms, jet-fighters, AWACS reconnaissance aircraft, advanced electronics and other equipment. Saudi Arabia pays higher fees than other countries for its soldiers, sailors and airmen to be trained at military facilities throughout the US. During the 1990s the Saudis spent an estimated $170 billion on military equipment, and last summer they awarded contracts worth some $50 billion to develop the country’s gas production facilities. American companies were the beneficiaries of almost all these sales and contracts. Riyadh has recently made public its decision to spend $2.6 billion to upgrade its fleet of ageing F-15 S "Eagle" fighter aircraft.

Members of the Wahabi House of Saud have also benefited personally from these sales and contracts. Foreign contractors usually pay a 5 percent "commission" to Saudi officials, often members of the royal family. Saudis who have become rich from the country’s oil wealth have mostly invested their fortunes in the West. According to Chas W Freeman, former US ambassador to Riyadh, some 100,000 Saudis own houses or flats in the US (Washington Post, February 11, 2002).

Saudi money has supported US policy goals and covert operations in many places, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua. In the 1980s the Saudis contributed more than $30 million to the Contras in Nicaragua. They contributed $10 million to an electoral campaign of the Christian Democratic Party (Italy) to enable it to defeat the Communist Party. The Wahabi Saudis also financed a CIA plot to assassinate Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah by a car-bomb in Beirut. The car exploded on March 8, 1985, killing 80 people and wounding two hundred; Ayatullah Fadlallah escaped unharmed.

The US is using various tactics. One relates to the financial support the alleged hijackers and Usama’s organization al-Qaeda has received from Saudi citizens. The other is to expose the indiscretions of the House of Saud. There is no dearth of these and the Americans have no doubt videotaped the extracurricular activities of all the Saudi princes, starting with the ailing and now incapacitated king Fahd. Some American newspapers have hinted as much; others have exposed the misappropriation of state funds by the ‘royals’. A particularly nasty piece — from the Saudis’ point of view — was Seymour Hersh’s in the New Yorker on October 22, in which, quoting National Security Agency [NSA] and CIA intercepts, he gives details of the Saudis’ telephone conversations.

For instance, one NSA intercept reveals yet again the extreme hypocrisy of the Saudi ‘royal family’. While professing strict adherence to the fundamental precepts of Islam and using the mutawwa’een — religious police — to enforce prayers, the Saudi royals are caught liaising with prostitutes. In one call, interior minister Nayef (king Fahd’s brother), urges a subordinate to withhold from the police evidence of the hiring of prostitutes, presumably by members of the royal family. Nayef is quoted saying that he didn’t want the "client list" to be released under any circumstances. Such information has kept the western tabloid press in business, whetting the appetites of consumers steeped in voyeurism.

If Hersh thought he could embarrass the Saudis by such exposures, he had better think again; the House of Saud is becoming thick-skinned. In a PBS "Frontline" interview broadcast on October 9, Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to Washington, when he was asked about reports of corruption in the royal family, was almost upbeat in his response. The family had spent nearly US$400 billion to develop Saudi Arabia, he said. "If you tell me that building this whole country... we misused or got corrupted with $50 billion, I’ll tell you, ‘Yes.’. . . So what? We did not invent corruption; nor did those dissidents, who are so ingenious, discover it."

Perhaps Bandar can afford to take this tone. The House of Saud and leading US political figures and companies are linked in an intricate pattern of business alliances. George Bush Senior is with the Carlyle Group which is involved in defence deals; Saudi Arabia is a major purchaser of American arms. Bush Sr is also a frequent flyer to the kingdom. Halliburton, the Texas-based oil-supply business formerly headed by vice president **** Cheney, was operating a number of subsidiaries in Saudi Arabia. Fahd was a major financial backer of Ronald Reagan’s anti-communist campaign in Latin America, and the Saudis have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to charities in the US. American construction and oil companies do billions of dollars’ worth of business every year with Saudi Arabia.

So, if US officials have known the true nature of the Saudi royals all along, why are they being exposed now? The simple answer is that the US hopes to present them with the bill for its ‘war’ in Afghanistan. The unstated threat is that if they refuse to pay, more revelations will follow that will further fuel anger against the ruling dynasty, leading to its overthrow by a combination of religious groups and disgruntled elements in the armed forces. But the US is held back from going too far by another important consideration: the possibility of an interruption in the oil-flow. A former high-level US intelligence official described the Saudi rulers as nervously "sitting on a keg of dynamite" — that is, the oil reserves: "they’re petrified that somebody’s going to light the fuse."

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

The fact that the Saudi monarchy is among the most corrupt regimes in the Muslim world, and remains in power only because they serve the interests of the US rather than because of any legitimacy among Muslims, has long been generally accepted throughout the Ummah. It is only the enemies of Islam and ignorant Western commentators who imagine that they have any meaningful standing or influence because of their Islamic pretensions and the fact that they control the territory in which the Haramain are located. Nonetheless, the US in particular seems to think that Saudi support or involvement can bestow some degree of credibility on American plans; hence the pressure on the Saudis to sponsor a plan by which troops from Muslim countries would be sent to Iraq to support US troops there.

The plan, described as a Saudi initiative, was announced by US and Iraqi officials on July 29, after meetings between US secretary of state Colin Powell and Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi in Jeddah. Although Saudi officials tried to play the idea down, saying the plans were at an early stage, they were heavily talked up by US officials, eager to create the impression that their occupation of Iraq was endorsed by other Arab states. It quickly became clear, however, that the plans were not practical. For one thing, the Saudis were only sponsoring the plan, but the troops were expected to come from opther countries, including Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan and Bangladesh, none of which was particularly anxious to get involved. There were also differences about what the troops’ role would be. While US officials insisted that they would operate under US command, doing jobs that US troops did not like to do, such as patrolling Iraqi cities where they were both highly visible and vulnerable to attack, Saudi officials -- trying to put the proposal in as positive a light as possible for Muslims -- suggested the plan would be the first step of a US withdrawal. Little wonder, then, that the plan came to nothing; perhaps few slightly positive Iraq-related headlines was all that the Bush regime really expected from it.

For Muslims, however, the fact that the Saudi government is so beholden to the US -- and perhaps to the Bush regime in particular, given the close business and other links between the Bush family and Aal-e Saud -- that they can be forced into such posturing is yet another sign of their irredeemable illegitimacy.

Cosmetic political reforms, by which the Saudis and their US allies hope to make the kingdom appear more ‘democratic’, cannot change this. The Saudi authorities announced on August 9 details of the municipal elections to be held later this year, the first in the country since the 1970s. The elections will be held in three phases, beginning after Eid al-Fitr and continuing after Eid al-Adha. The polls, which will elect half the members of municipal councils -- the other half will continue to be appointed by the government -- will hardly dent the Saudis’ total hold on real power; the phenomenon of al-democratiyya al-shakliyya -- ‘facade democracy’, behind which the powers of authoritarian regimes remain undiminished, is well established and widely recognised in the Arab world.

Muslims around the world know, and the Saudis know that they know, that only the removal of the regime will truly liberate the Haramain and the heartland of Islam.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

The Wahabi ‘royal’ rarely commits the error of publicly expressing anxiety or doubt about the durability of their corrupt regime, or of openly criticizing its US protectors’ backing for Zionist entity. Yet fear of the reaction of their subject outraged by their government’s support for the US-led ‘war on Islam’, and the unprecedented criticism in the Western media of the family’s repressive rule, have led its members to commit both errors very rarely.

For example – in 2001 - The ‘royals’ calculated that by taking out paid advertisements in the Arab and Zionist-controlled western press on what the government has done for the Saudi people, and by taking Washington to task publicly for its support of Palestine occupation, they could avoid being dismissed for Uncle Sam’s poodle. But the advertisements have only succeeded in being interpreted as a public admission of anxiety about their future, and president George W. Bush has responded by stepping up his support for Zionist entity, declaring the "Islamic resistance terrorist" - while blaming Arafat for the "violence in the region" because of his failure to control Palestinian ‘Islamic terrorists (Hamas)’.

Bush effectively closed the Arab rulers’ escape-routes that Arab allies of the US, like Saudi Arabia, had been hoping for when he froze the accounts of Arab groups, claiming that they were financing Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and called on Yasser Arafat to arrest all Islamic activists listed by Zionists as terrorists. Bush lined up behind Ariel Sharon, responsible for the murder of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the last year, and charged with war crimes in connection with his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacres (1982).

According to Western media reports, the US president also put strong pressure on hypocrite Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers to induce Arafat to carry out Sharon’s demands: pressure which those rulers have caved in.
US and Saudi sources have recently been quoted as saying that Saudi leaders — and Egyptian and Jordanian officials — had told Arafat to stand up to ‘Islamic extremists’ and end the violence against Israel. The report in the International Herald Tribune quoted a Saudi official as saying: "They are telling him, ‘Do something. It’s time to stop it’." It also quoted a Western official as saying that similar messages were sent to Arafat by president Husni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. Adding that they were telling Arafat "roughly the same thing secretary of state Colin Powell is telling him", the western official said while Arab leaders hate Sharon they "are also frightened".

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

In the 1970s, the Saudis quietly initiated ArabSat. no one really noticed, as satellite TV was still a novelty, but with cheaper dishes available, and privitization of media on the rise, satellite TV caught on big in the late 1980s, and ArabSat expanded. In the early 1990s, Fahd signed a lucrative deal with AT&T, giving the mega communications corporation exclusive rights to rewire his kingdom. The power of the Saudi-AT&T media nexus can be felt in various ways around the globe. For example, Saudi sponsored American Muslim organizations, such as the Islamic Information Service based in Southern California, have entered into partnerships with AT&T, enticing viewers of its weekly 'Islami' program to purchase the transnational conglomerate's services 'for the benefit of Islam' (the program, not the religion, one might guess).

While the Saudis one-way out another have their mitts in many of the offerings on ArabSat, they also weigh in with 2 channels of official state TV. The Saudis resort to state propaganda often, as in, for example, their programming designed to deflect criticism of the kingdom's well-documented exploitation of guest workers. In one oft-repeated sequence in English, and no doubt intended for journalists who haven't taken the time to study Arabic, a jubilant roving reporter asks a number of nervous looking guest workers from turkey, the Indian subcontinent, and the Philippines questions like: 'are you being treated well by your sponsor here in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia,' 'do you recieve your wages on time from your employer in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia,' 'how do you like living in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia?' Saudi state TV also runs programming catering to its homesick American expatriates, including 1970s sitcoms and dramas, and the occasional American rock and roll concert. Of Course, the singing and giggling is briefly but dutifully interrupted for the Saudi state televised Adhan and prayers.

In fact, with all the stupefying diversity of information age programming, there are some glaring omissions. Iranian broadcasts are generally censored from most services, and all news from Iran is filtered through the Western or Arab news agencies. Even the Arab stations do their share of filtering Iran's news. For example, when late Hafez al-Asad visited Islamic Iran, he met with then outgoing president Rafsanjani, incoming president Khatami, and the Rahbar of the Revolution, Ayatullah Seyyed Khamane'i. There were several live broadcasts of the various press conferences from the visit, but despite the Iranians supplying an Arabic/Persian translator, the Syrian TV stations used voice-overs with their own translation, and some of the interviews were heavily edited. at the same time, while Iranian broadcasts are carefully filtered from all satellite services, Gulf Arab stations broadcast official news and Wahhabi doctrine in Persian nightly.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

The Wahabi government having squandered its oil wealth is considering selling off its source.

"When Saudi Arabia's ailing King Fahd went on holiday to Spain in July 1999," writes David Hirst of Britain's Guardian Weekly, "eight aircraft, including five Boeing 747s and a giant Antonov cargo plane, bore him to Malaga from the royal terminal at Jeddah. With him went more than 400 retainers, ministers, 200 tonnes of luggage, 25 Rolls-Royces and limousines." Mr. Hirst gives details:

The king's favorite son, Abdul Aziz, has a $2.7 billion home. Royal retreats line the north coast of Jeddah mile after mile. The king has a peninsula for himself.

The 20,000 princes and princesses get a monthly stipend of $4,000 to $128,000. The monthly "expenses" of Prince Sultan may be as much as $20 million. Some estimate that 40 percent of national revenues flow to the royal family.

But the average Saudi hasn't done as well as the royals.

Per capita income has plunged from $15,700 in 1980, to $5700 today. While Saudi Arabia employs 6 million foreigners, 27 percent of Saudi males, and 95 percent of Saudi females are unemployed.

In 1982 Saudi Arabia had reserves of $170 billion. Today the national debt is almost that amount, and about 12 percent of the budget goes to servicing this debt.

Now it appears that Saudi Arabia is considering selling off its source of income by permitting foreign investment in exploration and production. It's as if unable to live off selling eggs, Saudi Arabia is considering selling the chickens.

A Stratfor analyst writes, "Foreign oil investment in Saudi Arabia is nothing new. The kingdom nationalized its oil industry 20 years ago and has periodically turned to foreign investments to compensate for its lack of funds and expertise. However, the country had never allowed foreign investment in the upstream oil sector. Upstream refers to exploration and production, while downstream includes refining and distribution."

Foreign oil companies prefer the exploration and production deals. U.S. oil firms Arco, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips Petroleum and Texaco have all submitted proposals to Saudi Arabia. Foreign companies including France's Elf Aquitaine and Total, Royal Dutch-Shell and Italy's ENI group have also expressed interest.

Says the Stratfor analyst, "Saudi Arabia first hinted at bringing in foreign upstream investment in September 1998 during a secret meeting attended by Crown Prince Abdullah, former President George Bush and CEOs from seven major oil companies." This October 16, U.S. Commerce Secretary William Daley called for Saudi Arabia to remove obstacles to foreign investment.
Permitting foreign investment in exploration and production raises the possibility that one day Saudi Arabia itself may be buying oil from a foreign company.

For the long term this is not likely to improve the condition of the average Saudi who has little voice in the affairs of government. Reducing the royal family's spending, unnecessary arms purchases and dependence on foreign workers, coupled with increasing job opportunities for Saudis may set Saudi Arabia on the road to economic recovery.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

After its failure to curb Tehran’s ambitions to go nuclear – even if for civilian purposes – the western Zionist-regimes have asked its Arab puppet-regimes to acquire nuclear technology (investing billions of dollars into western Zionists’ arms industry) to protect their regimes from Islamic revival spreading in many countries ruled by post-colonial western stooges. The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia – while Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said – “it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a “security hedge”. If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush in the Arab world,”

The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had never shown such interest even though their arch-enemy – Zionist Israel – went nuclear in 1970s and is believed to posses more than 240 nuclear bombs - and until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.

Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices. However, the case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world’s largest oil reserves and already posses several gas-turbine power generation plants. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world.

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

The Wahabi ‘royal’ have always not been ‘Prince (generous)’ towards their western masters. In fact – until the first quarter of 20th century they were ‘Paupers (beggars)’ until they sold their souls to the Devil - the British imperialists realized their dream of a 'Mussalman agent' through which to control the holy cities. Abdul Aziz al-Saud had repeatedly met with British political agents and had received large annual 'subsidies' since 1916 (originally 20,000 pounds, later raised to 60,000 - then over US$300,000). In the event, the British have received a massive and on-going return on this relatively modest initial investment.

In 1938 oil was discovered by the British – which turned the ‘Pauper’ into ‘Prince’.

According to ‘Foreign Affairs (2000)’ – Private Saudi citizens have deposits of over US$800 billion in western financial institutions. The Zakat on this amount alone comes to US$20 billion (more than Pakistan’s annual budget). The dues on the personal wealth of ruling Wahabi junta and wealthy citizens in the oil-rich Muslim nation-states could, conceivably, double this amount. Late King Fahd alone was reported to had a personal wealth estimated at US$44 billion and the Zakat due on that loot is sufficient to build and run at least one new first-rate university in the Muslim world every year.

An American Zionist Christian Samuel Zwemer established the first mission in Gulf States in l889 – establishing many schools and churches in the coastal townships. Zwemer was explicit in his understanding of the situation at that time. The missionaries were to consider themselves as the allies of the Jews in their hopes and plans for the creation of a Jewish homeland in the region. Zwemer justified this on the grounds that the region had 'belonged' to Christ before Islam came to dominate, there had been Christian communities in the Peninsula (in Najran) and, similarly, Jewish communities (in Yathrib, Khaybar, etc.). Western powers had the right, in his view, to bring the region 'back' to its former religious affiliations.

That ‘justification’ gave western powers to find collaborators amongst Arab elites to help them destroy the Ottomans, who kept refusing to allow mass Jewish settlements in Palestine. They found their allies amongst Wahabi al-Saud and Turkish Heshmite families. Once installed in power in Islamic heartland - The Saudi family subjected the lands, seas, and all the resources to western, specifically British and later American, political and oil interests in the region. It has come to be widely accepted since the Gulf crisis of 1990. At the 'invitation' of the Gulf Arab rulers, notably the Wahabi Saudis, the western military forces occupied the Arabian Peninsula in order to prosecute their war against Iraq; thereafter, having destroyed that country's civil as well as military structures, they continue to have a very large and powerful military presence in the Gulf countries. This is done with much less publicity than during the Gulf war but with not much effort at concealment. The policy of non-concealment also has its purposes apart from its effect of proving the Gulf regimes helpless, it makes them vulnerable to the discontent of their own people, which in turn makes them more dependent upon the western presence. The situation is not very different from the protection rackets run by the mafia: the Gulf Arab regimes are required, in exchange for 'protection', to spend huge sums of money on the purchase of arms and other equipments and other back-up services, which returns the petrodollars to the West and keeps the Western military industry well-enough supplied with funds to go on producing new kinds and grades of weapons which their victims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq cannot match. It is a vicious circle in every sense.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

Al-Saud ‘royals’ have supported every ‘sell-out’ peace talks – sponsored both by USSR and America. They were the first western puppet Muslim rulers, who condemned the November 4, 1995 assassination of the Zionist entity’s prime minister Yitzhak Rabin; and also condemned the bombings that occurred in Zionist entity in early 1996. On September 30, 1994, Wahabi al-Saud and their Gulf allies decided to drop the secondary and tertiary phases of the Arab boycott (which penalize companies that deal with NAZIsrael), although they have not yet formally renounced the primary boycott, which bans direct dealings with Israel.

Saudi Arabia, like other Arab states, recognizes the secularist PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. However, Saudi financial aid to the PLO ended after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait because of Saudi displeasure over PLO support for Iraq. At a donors' conference organized by their guardian United States after the Israeli- PLO Declaration of Principles of September 1993, al-Saud pledged $100 million to support the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan during the first year of its implementation.

Al-Saud ‘royals’ have been the largest arms purchaser in the Third World. During the period from 1988 through 1995, for example, the ‘royals’ bought $67.1 billion worth of military equipment (in current U.S. dollars), accounting for nearly 30% of all Third World arms agreements during the above eight-year period. Of this amount, $34.4 billion represent U.S. sales, and $32.7 billion came from all other sources.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

The Wahabi-regime is known for propping up pro-western regimes in Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Zaire, to name only a few. Whenever, Zionists in the White House need money – it approaches Riyadh. “It takes king Fahd about ten seconds to write a cheque,” said William Quandt of US National Security Council – “It takes Congress weeks to debate the smallest issue of this sort. If you can get somebody else to pay for it, it’s nice and convenient.” Thanks God for the Saudis,” – said one Reagan official – “I view it as a very cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship built on identical views.”

Former US Secretary of States with responsibility for the Middle East, Alfred Atherton, a witness before the ‘Irangate’ hearing, said - :It’s not written down anywhere, it’s implicit, but it’s unambiguous. The Saudis see this as a special relationship, and we do it too.” “The Saudis have been terrific in lots of places. Any time we needed someone to pay for something, we turned to the Saudis. We viewed them as this great ‘milch cow’,” said one US diplomat in the Middle East.

The ‘milch cow’ was well and thoroughly milked to finance the Contras. Frustrated by Congress’s ban on further help to the rebels in Nicaragua, US President Ronald Reagan turned to his number-one puppet in the Middle East, and King Fahd obligingly donated US$32 million, followed by Brunei US$10 million.

Saudi Arabia is America's top customer. Since 1990 the US government, through the Pentagon's arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department's direct commercial sales program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-cow; a compulsive buyer of latest weaponry. The list of US sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the US government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Israel and Saudi Arabia's case, considering the fact that they possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

The Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor – manages Wahabi ‘royals’ and Bin Laden family’s hundreds of billion dollars investment. The Carlyle Group’s directors include Zionists like, Bush Sr. and James Baker; former US Secretary of State.

While Islamic Iran, under the clear and focused leadership of Imam Khomeini and the ulama around him, was redefining the Islamic line on all issues – but particularly that of the global imperialism of the US and the oppression and exploitation of Muslims by pro-Western kings, colonels and other dictators – the Saudi-American alliance was also preparing deeper and longer-term fronts in its war against Islamic Iran and the Islamic movement inspired by the Islamic Revolution. Realizing that Saddam Hussein would not succeed in destroying the Islamic Revolution, the Saudi-American axis also launched other campaigns against the Islamic movement, including cultural and intellectual ones, and even ones presented as Islamic movements in their own right. To counter the influence of revolutionary Iran, therefore, the US and Saudi regimes turned to the promotion of alternative understandings of Islam, even of revolutionary, political and anti-Western understandings, all over the Muslim world, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even in Iran itself.

This does not mean that these Islamic movements consist of certified and paid American agents ; the suggestion is absurd. What it does mean is that there are ‘Islamicists’ whose understandings of the future are less threatening to the US master-plan, and whose activities can be manipulated to serve the US’s short-term interests even if their long-term objectives are unacceptable to the Americans, and their Yehudi and Saudi allies. (Whatever their other differences, the mini-munafiqeen otherwise known as the Saudis, and the larger-than-life munafiqeen otherwise known as the Israelis, agree on one thing at least: Islamic Iran has to go.)

Wahabi 'royals' behind Musharraf's Israeli love-affair

Pakistani military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, shook hands – on September 14, 2005 - with a war criminal Ariel Sharon of Israel - better known as the Butcher of Beirut - was bad enough; it was even worse that he chose to do so on the twenty-third anniversary of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres (September 14-16). It was Sharon, as Israel's defence minister, who supervised the mass-slaughter of Palestinians by his Phalangist allies after the Palestinian fighters were withdrawn from Lebanon under a US/UN-brokered deal in 1982.

When the political heat intensified in Pakistan, Musharraf told the press that both King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas had blessed the meetings.

Three days after the Musharraf-Sharon "chance encounter", Musharraf addressed the American Jewish Congress (AJC) annual dinner in New York, which event he later described as the highlight of his visit to the US. That there was nothing chance about the encounter, and that it had been in preparation for two years, was also confirmed by Jack Rosen, chairman of the AJC, who heaped praise on Musharraf during his welcoming remarks. The dictator of Pakistan can now look forward to his name being added to the list of nominees for the Nobel peace prize, although he will probably have to recognise Israel before he can actually get it. The Nobel Prize is little more than a useful tool to lure Muslims to betray their own people


Jun 19, 2011
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
This is no news. Everyone knows that Saudis and Arabs and their Israeli master are behind everything wrong in the Islamic world. But we have Iran to stand up for us. Lanat on Saudis and their slaves and masters.


Mar 16, 2011
This is no news. Everyone knows that Saudis and Arabs and their Israeli master are behind everything wrong in the Islamic world. But we have Iran to stand up for us. Lanat on Saudis and their slaves and masters.

The Muafiqs

Out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire emerged not an 'Arab nation', as envisioned by the champions of Arabism, but division of the Middle East into Arab nation-States. As if this were not bad enough, an additional blow was delivered by the creation of the Zionist State of Israel in Palestine. The misery of the people in the Middle East can be traced to these developments in the early part of this century.

The western colonials left behind three types of their puppet-rulers - those viewed as friendly to the West, those opposed, and the 'floaters.'

The West's 'friends' are easy to identify: Wahabi king Fahd and Heshmite king Husain, president Husni Mubarak of Egypt, the GulfSshaikhs and even king Hasan of Morocco in the Maghreb. These rulers have always done the west's bidding, some more than others.

Those on the enemy list - colonel Mu'ammar Qaddafi of Libya (not anymore though) and Saddam Husain of Iraq - are not there because of their undemocratic credentials. They are considered enemies because they refuse to toe the western-prescribed path. The floaters include people like Hafez al-Asad of Syria and Yassir Arafat of the Palestinian Authority.

Dad Bush’s “worse-than-Hitler Saddam” - was the creation of the west itself because it suited their purpose at the time. Initially, Saddam had to be weaned away from the Soviet Union; later, he was needed to fight Iran after it had undergone an Islamic Revolution overthrowing the Shah, another western-Israeli client.

Arms, in fact, have been the west's favourite tools in advancing its policies in the Arab region. In the early part of 20th century, Britain used the supply of weapons to Husain I (better known as Sharif Husain of Makkah) to promote the Arab revolt against Turkey. When Sharif Husain demanded that Britain honour its pledge to make him the king of all the Arabs, the British simply switched sides, supporting his arch-rival, Wahabi Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud. Husain I was ditched and humiliated, forcing him into exile as Ibn Saud's tribal allies crushed his army.

Former US president Jimmy Carter admitted in 1977 that King Husain of Jordan not only had close dealings with Zionist entity – but was on the CIA payroll.

The Wahabi King Fahd – known for his laziness, heavy drinking or womanizing. It is a disgrace that a man of his character should carry the title of “Khadim al-Haramain”. It is Saudi Arabia, more than any other oil producing country – which, not only, has been No.1 customer of the western arms mafia, but also have deliberately kept oil prices low in order to appease the US. This is at a heavy price to Saudi Arabia itself. According to World Bank report of 1983 – “the per capita income of an average Saudi declined from $14,600 in 1982 to $6400 in 1992, without factoring in inflation. Similarly, in 1982, Saudi Arabia had a surplus of $142 billion; in 1997 its debt is somewhere between $60 billion and $120 billion.”

Wahabi 'royals' in bed with Zionists

At the heart of the special relationship is a simple bargain: oil in exchange for military protection. The Saudis’ efforts to maintain steady oil exports at low prices have had a vital role in maintaining a global economy in which the US enjoys supremacy. At the same time, American military equipment, advisors and technical support have been indispensable for the modernization of the Saudi armed forces. Saudi Arabia has been active in the US Foreign Military Sales programme since the 1950s. Members of the Saudi armed forces have been trained at military academies and facilities throughout the US.

The other side of the coin is that Saudi military orders have been an essential lubricant of the American military-industrial complex. For several years some 50,000 workers in the American aerospace industry are expected to depend for their livelihood on Saudi commercial and military orders. In the 1990s, Saudi Arabia went on an arms shopping-spree that cost some $65 billion. Yet, despite decades of massive military expenditure, Saudi combat-readiness is laughable, as shown by the kingdom’s request for US military protection after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (August 1990).

London Observer on February 11, 2001 argued that by pinning the blame on foreigners linked to the underground drinking industry, Saudi Arabia "lifted the lid off one of its best-kept secrets - the decadent high life enjoyed by foreigners there". The report added that, despite strict laws banning drinks and drugs, it "is possible to party around the clock in Saudi Arabia", with alcohol "freely available – and sometimes, some princes in attendance".

The western media, politicians and human-rights groups are mostly not worried about the activities of the "drunken guests", the offence they are causing to Muslims, and their corrupting influence on Muslim society in the peninsula. Equally clearly, the Wahabi Saudi ruling elite - content to receive protection-money from the alcohol mafia, which is ready to bribe and kill to safeguard an industry which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars - is not serious about eliminating the industry, the mafia or the "drunken guests". After all, arresting a handful of westerners - when, according to one estimate, there are almost 300,000 Europeans and North Americans ‘working’ in the kingdom - is not even scratching the surface. Unfortunately, radical change must wait on the removal of the ruling corrupt Wahabi dynasty

Wahabi 'royals' seek protection of kufr

Saudi Arabia possesses at least a quarter of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, and has always been willing to dance to America’s tune, working to preserve the stability of oil prices on the international market. In times of crisis, the Saudis have generally responded to America’s exhortations to use their vast oil-producing capacity to make up shortfalls, or to bring pressure to bear on fellow OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members to limit production cuts.

Popular pressure on the Saudi rulers because of the intifada has compounded the erosion of the House of Saud’s political and religious legitimacy that began with American troops entering the Arabian Peninsula in 1990. Military cooperation with the US has always had the potential of bringing about cracks in the edifice of popular legitimacy of Saudi rule. The legitimacy of the Saudi regime is rooted in Wahhabism, which postulates a political system based on power being divided between the ulama and the ruling family. Seeking support from non-Muslims against fellow Muslims is one of a host of acts that nullify one’s Islam (‘nawaqid al-Islam’), according to Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), the founder of Wahhabism.

Close cooperation with the pro-Israel US administration has always undermined the Wahabi-regime’s Islamic credentials. Before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi-US defence relationship was described as "over the horizon," that is maintaining no military presence in the kingdom, despite forces being stationed in other parts of the Gulf. The decision of king Fahd to allow American troops into the kingdom in August 1990 transformed this relationship. But Fahd’s decision increased popular pressure on the Saudi royal family as never before. Critics point to the irony that the Wahabi ‘royals’ claim to defend the sanctuaries in Makkah and Medina, while in reality they were helpless against Saddam without the unbelievers’ aid. Usama bin Ladin (a Salafi), had called repeatedly for the expulsion of "infidel" forces from the land of Islam’s holiest sites.

Wahabi Dynasty - the west's custodians of the Haramain

The significance of Hajj was realized by the western enemies of Islam in the last century. In the early 1850s, Captain R F (later Sir Richard) Burton visited Makkah and Madinah and reported on their potential as a focus for anti-British sentiment and activities. A few years later, the British Consul in Jeddah spelt it out:

'The point of real importance to England politically, I believe, is the Hejaz as the focus of Muslim thought and the nucleus from which radiate ideas, advice, instructions, and dogmatical implications... Certain persons proceed to Hajj for political reasons. Mecca, being free from European intrusion, is safe ground on which meetings can be held, ideas exchanged... Up to the present time we have kept no watch on those who come and go... thus meetings may be convened at Mecca at which combinations hostile to us may form without our knowing anything until the shell bursts in our midst... If this consulate could have a trusty Mussalman agent at Mecca, I believe a great deal of valuable information could be obtained.'

This early western insight is central to understanding every political development in the region ever since. If the British reached this understanding of the importance of the Haramain and Hajj well over a 100 years ago, there can be no doubt that western decision-makers - be they in London, Paris, Washington, New York, Moscow or Tel Aviv - have been aware of it ever since.


Mar 16, 2011
Wahabi Dynasty - the west's custodians of the Haramain

The significance of Hajj was realized by the western enemies of Islam in the last century. In the early 1850s, Captain R F (later Sir Richard) Burton visited Makkah and Madinah and reported on their potential as a focus for anti-British sentiment and activities. A few years later, the British Consul in Jeddah spelt it out:

'The point of real importance to England politically, I believe, is the Hejaz as the focus of Muslim thought and the nucleus from which radiate ideas, advice, instructions, and dogmatical implications... Certain persons proceed to Hajj for political reasons. Mecca, being free from European intrusion, is safe ground on which meetings can be held, ideas exchanged... Up to the present time we have kept no watch on those who come and go... thus meetings may be convened at Mecca at which combinations hostile to us may form without our knowing anything until the shell bursts in our midst... If this consulate could have a trusty Mussalman agent at Mecca, I believe a great deal of valuable information could be obtained.'

This early western insight is central to understanding every political development in the region ever since. If the British reached this understanding of the importance of the Haramain and Hajj well over a 100 years ago, there can be no doubt that western decision-makers - be they in London, Paris, Washington, New York, Moscow or Tel Aviv - have been aware of it ever since.

In February, 2002 – Second Intifada was beginning to give the Zionist occupiers of Palestine a dose of their own medicine, however, Wahabi Crown prince Abdullah came up with a proposal to save the Zionist-regime by recognizing it. The idea itself was not new; the Wahabi ‘royals’ have been anxious for a long time to recognize the Zionist state. As early as 1981 Fahd (then crown prince and later king) made a similar announcement, which came to be called the “Faas (Fez) declaration”, at an earlier Arab League summit; it was the Zionists who rejected it out of hand. Abdullah’s reiteration of the proposal at this time, however, was making many observers wonder. He made the remark in an ‘off the record’ conversation with Thomas Friedman, the ‘New York Times’ columnist who has been in the kingdom to report on developments since September 11. On Friedman’s urging Abdullah agreed to go public and the proposal was published in the New York Times on February 17, 2002.

Friedman was not only invited to the kingdom by the Saudi ambassador to Washington, but also given the opportunity to dine in Riyadh with crown prince Abdullah, the de facto king (Fahd is incapacitated by old age and stroke). In his column on February 17, Friedman reminded readers of what he had proposed earlier: "that the 22 members of the Arab League ... make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: in return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with UN Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world."

Wahabi royals and £60m “slush fund”

Al-Saud family is threatening to suspend diplomatic ties with Britain unless Downing Street intervenes to block an investigation into a £60m “slush fund” allegedly set up for some members of its royal family.

A senior Saudi diplomat in London has delivered an ultimatum to Tony Blair that unless the inquiry into an allegedly corrupt defence deal is dropped, diplomatic links between Britain and Saudi Arabia will be severed, a defence source has disclosed.

The Saudis, key allies in the Middle East, have also threatened to cut intelligence co-operation with Britain over Al-Qaeda (in Iraq).

They have repeated their threat that they will terminate payments on a defence contract that could be worth £40 billion and safeguard at least 10,000 British jobs.

Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence working for USrael

1- The Saudi intelligence presence is in three locations in Beirut in addition to the Saudi embassy, and they are in the centers of The Future Movement. They also solidly exist in the city of Sidon, the capital of the south, and they are centered in residential units that belong to The Future Party of Saad al-Hariri.

2- The Jordanian and the Egyptian intelligence are Located in Lebanon Mountain, in Beirut and Sidon, but they concentrate their existence in the area of Akkar and Tripoli, on Shtura road, and in some of The Future Movement locations on that road.
The Jordanian and the Egyptian intelligence are establishing their residential places in Lebanon Mountain within partisan centers and in nearby residential apartments owned by al-Bristol gathering. This intelligence organizes the roads watching. Also, they have Thuraya phones, and they are communicating with an operations room in unknown location. They also report to the ships of the International forces in the sea, as they contact the UNIFIL to report the trucks’ traffic; and in the case of suspecting any truck, they contact the Lebanese Security agencies to inspect that vehicle.
The mission that seemed to be sought by the members of the Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi intelligence, includes the following:

1- What is the strength of each party and its influence inside Lebanon?

2- What is the scale of the rising of people support for the political leaderships?

3- Observing the interior movement in Lebanon, and hiring agents and informants to provide information about what is happening all along the borderlines, what is happening in the Lebanese interior, and the position of the Lebanese army and the other security forces; so, it would be studied by the security forces of the 14th of February, and then to be sent to US and Europe, and of course, through US to Israel.

4- Studying the grass roots of Hezbollah and its weak points, also studying the traffic flow of the cars which are granted passage visas at the barriers of the Lebanese army and the internal security forces. In this aspect, the Egyptian Intelligence objected to the security chiefs about the granting of permissions to figures from Hezbollah to pass through the barriers of the Lebanese army. The Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi intelligence informed the UNIFIL forces about the necessity of staying alert concerning the orders of the given task to smooth the passing of those figures at the Lebanese borders.

5- The Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi intelligence searching for the places of Hezbollah’s weaponry, and researching the results of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon at the psychological level of people. The three intelligence agencies gather in the Saudi embassy in Beirut.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

Once the richest country in the Middle East - the Wahabicountry has been bankrupted since 1990s due largely as the result of its macroeconomic policies and irrational overspending. In both cases, its exploitation by the west is a major factor. The Saudis have not only been financing American policies in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel - they spent an estimated $26 billion to subsidize Iraq’s war against Iran, and an estimated $55-65 billion towards the US’s destruction of Iraq — but elsewhere too, for example in Latin America and the former Soviet Union.

Then there is the money that the Saudis spent on arms shopping sprees after the US occupation of the region. According to the Washington-based Congressional Research Services, between 1988 and 1992 Saudi Arabia accounted for 30 percent of the $120 billion the developing world spent on weapons. Between August 1990 and September 1992 alone it bought $25 billion worth of American weapons. Arms contracts worth billions of dollars were also signed with other countries such as France and Britain. For instance, the Saudis’ commitments under the Al-Yamamah deals with the UK were financed by selling 50,000 barrels of crude oil a day. In 1994, Riyadh was forced to negotiate an agreement with Washington to restructure $9.2 billion in arms payments to US suppliers over five years. Despite this massive expenditure, Saudi Arabia’s inability to defend itself is clear.

When it could no longer fund the deficits, the Saudi government started borrowing on the domestic market; its domestic debt is expected to reach $133 billion this year. This is *****alent to more than 100 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – a level of domestic indebtedness that touches the limits for fiscal soundness set by international financial institutions.

The Wahabi cult ruling the two sacred cities of Makkah and Madinah – is not only siphoning billions of dollars to enemies of Islamic world in the West – but is also practicing a systematic campaign to obliterate all traces of the life and times of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and of his Companions (ra) – which is not merely the result of greed for money; there is a distorted belief-system behind it as well. In fact, the Saudis have committed most of their crimes against Islamic civilization ostensibly to purify Islam. From a misconstruction of the views of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab on tauheed (monotheism), the Saudis have derived a license to erase all visible reminders of the inspiring life of the Prophet (pbuh) - And they claim to do all this in the name of Islam, to preserve its monotheism.

This terrible effort to reduce Islam to a set of dry, ineffectual personal beliefs, rather than a living and vibrant faith that commands its followers to act to establish Allah’s Vicegerency on earth, has also destroyed some of the most stirring monuments of Islamic history: Badr, the site of the first battle between the Muslims and the Quraysh, is now a heap of rubble. The site of the Battle of the Trench (6 AH) has been obliterated by a new road. This place, still known as Sab’ Masajid ("seven mosques"), has been shrinking for many years; in August 2002 there were only four of the original seven left, and one of those four, that of Hazrat Fatima (ra), was locked.

All of this is a crime against Islamic civilization and history. It also shows how our enemies (Munafiqoon) are busy at large-scale social engineering of Muslim history and consciousness. The Saudis’ crude efforts to efface the memory of the Prophet (pbuh) from the awareness of those who visit his Mosque today is nowhere so painfully apparent as in the now disfigured, partially erased and painted-over calligraphy that used to decorate the pillars of the Prophet’s Mosque. Those stunning calligraphic motifs, the flowering of Islamic art, the work of some of the best artisans of the Ottoman period, are no more. Those expressions of unbounded love for the Prophet (pbuh), chiseled, engraved and calligraphed by reverend hands, now cry out to the Muslims for their ruthless murder.

These are, however, not the only crimes of the ruling Wahabi clan that has occupied Islam’s cradle and homeland. Their enslavement to the West, their distorted faith and their greed for riches and comfort, have combined to produce one of the worst police states in the world. Their social policies have resulted in the widespread use of drugs throughout occupied Arabia. Expatriates working there report a terrible breakdown of family life, such as young men who stay away from their classes to protect their mothers from their fathers, who habitually beat their wives in order to find excuses to divorce them so that they can marry younger women while still remaining within the limit of four wives. They also tell of various conferences that have been held in the Intercontinental Hotel, in front of the Haram in Makkah, which non-Muslims (Jews, Christians and atheists) have attended. This is a violation of the Qur’anic injunction that such people are not allowed in the sanctified precinct.


Jul 11, 2010
Saudi Arabia
This article contains soo much factual mistakes..and is the Shia iran hates israel does not mean the sunni world has to follow the advice of its ayatollahs...btw Iran closest ally Turkey has full blown releationship with Israel yet the ayatollahs dont utter a single world about it


Mar 16, 2011
This article contains soo much factual mistakes..and is the Shia iran hates israel does not mean the sunni world has to follow the advice of its ayatollahs...btw Iran closest ally Turkey has full blown releationship with Israel yet the ayatollahs dont utter a single world about it
I just found it so decided to post personally I'm skeptical on it.

Abu Zolfiqar

Rest in Peace
Feb 12, 2009
in 1973 the OPEC cartel used the very leverage they had (foregoing billions in revenue in the process) for the sake of unity and a just cause.

gone are those days

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom