NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
The attempts to destroy the Palestinian Cause have been on the drawing board of the Al Sauds 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 Israels 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 Israels 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 Arabias 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 détat succeeded in overthrowing Iraqs 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 Arabias 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 Israels 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 Arabias 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 Irans 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 kingdoms 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 Israels aim of destroying Irans 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 Israels 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 Israels nuclear capabilities.
It seems that Irans enmity toward Saudi Arabia has a more immediate strategic cause. Iran is not going to forgive Saudi Arabias political stand with the US against Irans nuclear interests, nor is it going to forget Saudi Arabias support for Saddam Husseins forces in the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 1980s. Indeed, Tehrans 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 Irans nuclear facility, and thirdly, that the Saudi government has been providing ideological support for Irans 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 Israels 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 kingdoms 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 Israels 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 Arabias rulers have repeatedly witnessed Israels rejection of many offers of peace and Israels 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
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 Israels 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 Israels 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 Arabias 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 détat succeeded in overthrowing Iraqs 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 Arabias 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 Israels 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 Arabias 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 Irans 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 kingdoms 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 Israels aim of destroying Irans 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 Israels 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 Israels nuclear capabilities.
It seems that Irans enmity toward Saudi Arabia has a more immediate strategic cause. Iran is not going to forgive Saudi Arabias political stand with the US against Irans nuclear interests, nor is it going to forget Saudi Arabias support for Saddam Husseins forces in the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 1980s. Indeed, Tehrans 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 Irans nuclear facility, and thirdly, that the Saudi government has been providing ideological support for Irans 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 Israels 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 kingdoms 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 Israels 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 Arabias rulers have repeatedly witnessed Israels rejection of many offers of peace and Israels 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
