Saudi Writers Acknowledge Israel's Success

From MEMRI Special Dispatch No.4036, July 29, 2011: On June 7, 2011, two Saudi columnists – the liberal Khalaf Al-Harbi, of the Saudi daily 'Okaz, and Fawaz Al-'Ilmi, of the Saudi daily Al-Watan – published articles comparing Israel's situation to that of the Arab countries. Al-Harbi opined that the secret to Israel's success lay in its democratic regime and its respect for the human rights of its citizens, while Al-'Ilmi wrote that Israel's prosperity was due to its investment in education and science. It should be noted that these articles are a rare phenomenon in the Saudi government press. Following are excerpts of both articles: Al-Harbi: "Do We Really Still Believe that Israel Is a Temporary Entity Bound to Disappear?"   ..."The secret to Israel's survival, despite all the great challenges it has faced, lies in democracy and respect for the worth of the [Israeli] individual....    The secret to the collapse of the Arab countries, one after another, lies in dictatorship and in the oppression of the individual... It is impossible for an Arab country, a neighbor of Israel, to succeed in liberating Palestine while denying dignity to individuals [within its own borders].    "Israel won war after war, and scooped up Arab lands larger than [Israel itself] in both size and population. It then went on [to develop] manufacturing, industry, and invention. The [average] income there is double [the average income] in the neighboring Arab countries. [Israel] has rendered itself an inescapable fact. Throughout all stages [of its development], it drew its power from the honor it granted to its citizens, while its Arab neighbors trampled the [poor] creatures known as their citizens under military boots. "If only we could get in touch with our teachers to let them know that Israel still exists, while the Arabs are headed for destruction. In order to know who will remain and who will perish, one must always check who has democracy, human rights, and social justice."  'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), June 7, 2011 Al-'Ilmi: Israel Is at the Pinnacle of Scientific Research, the Arabs at Its Nadir Al-'Ilmi wrote: "...Tawasul [Altawasul.com] is the official website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and, unlike Arab websites, it updates its entries every 12 minutes around the clock and offers them in Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi, English, French, and Russian. On January 20, the website published a report which revealed that the only registry in the world for Arab bone marrow donors is located in the Hadassah Medical Center, associated with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It should be noted that the Arabs living in Israel constitute no more than 1.2 million of the world's Arabs, who number upwards of 400 million. ..."Before these Arab [donors] were registered, the Hadassah Medical Center largely failed to expand its donor registry, or to [arrange] donations from Jew to Arab or vice versa. But, thanks to the Arab doctor, perceptions have changed, and Arabs and Jews are willing to donate bone marrow [to one another] in order to save the life of someone they don't even know. "This year, Israel published numerous scientific studies that put it in first place worldwide in terms of the number of studies [published] per capita – 12 studies to every 10,000 people. America is in second place, with 10 studies [to every 10,000 people], followed by Britain, with nine. As for the Arab countries, they are all at the bottom end of these statistics. "Reports on the gaps in science and technology between the Arabs and Israel show that the annual education expenses of the [average] Arab citizen has dropped to $340, while in Israel it is more than $2,500. Indices... that measure income, education, and health levels place Israel at 23rd place worldwide, while Egypt has dropped to 199th place, Syria to 111th, Jordan to 99th, and Lebanon to 82nd. As for the number of scientists engaged in research per one million citizens, Israel has 1,395, versus 136 in the Arab world... UNESCO's statistics indicate that, on average, scientific research expenses in the Arab countries do not exceed 0.2% of the annual budget, whereas in Israel the figure is 4.7%, placing it in first place worldwide... "For ten years now, Israel has been forming strategic ties with scientifically advanced countries in order to merge [its research] with their research centers, and in order to encourage its scientists to take part in international development programs. Today, there are 21 international science companies in Israel... It knows before everyone else the results of [these companies'] studies, reaping their fruits and using their scientific expertise to advance Israeli inventions. "The Israeli strategy in science and technology is based on finding new approaches in scientific research and technological invention by training new generations of scientists – especially in physics, chemistry, and the natural and social sciences, as [Israel] is convinced that these sciences will allow it to control the world and direct its course. "Since 1949, Israel has established marine geology and nuclear physics institutes, as well as [institutes] for the study of desert regions and information technology. Israel makes use of scientific research and technological development to secure its coasts and meet its [other] strategic defense and security needs, and in order to protect the environment, discover and develop natural resources and use them before others, produce electricity, communications, and information technology, and research [alternative] energy..."  Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), June 7, 2011

US-Saudi split

From WSJ, 27 May 2011, by MATTHEW ROSENBERG, JAY SOLOMON and MARGARET COKER:

Saudi Arabia is rallying Muslim nations across the Middle East and Asia to join an informal Arab alliance against Iran, in a move some U.S. officials worry could draw other troubled nations into the sectarian tensions gripping the Arab world.

Saudi officials have approached Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Central Asian states to lend diplomatic support—and potentially military assistance in some cases—to help stifle a majority Shiite revolt in Sunni-led Bahrain, a conflict that has become a symbol of Arab defiance against Iran.

Saudi Arabia's efforts, though against a common enemy, signal increasing friction with the Obama administration....

Prince Bandar—who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for more than two decades—told the Pakistani generals that the U.S. shouldn't be counted on to restore stability across the Middle East ...
...Saudi officials said their campaign was broad. ..."All the major Muslim states are willing to commit to this issue if need be and asked by Saudi leadership."

The official said any potential Pakistani troops could be integrated into the 4,000-man force of mostly Saudi soldiers that deployed to Bahrain in March to defend the ruling Khalifa family against the popular domestic uprising against its rule.

...The military intervention was invited by Bahrain's Sunni monarchy, which accused Iran of driving the protest movement.....

Security forces from other Gulf Cooperation Council members joined Saudi troops in stifling the revolt, in what Saudi Arabia said was a message to Iran not to meddle in other nations' affairs. The GCC includes Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Saudi Arabia has sought to expand the GCC to include Jordan and Morocco.

..Saudi diplomats said that after the GCC force entered Bahrain in March, Riyadh dispatched senior officials to Europe and Asia to explain the operation and try to galvanize support. Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal traveled to Europe while Prince Bandar traveled to Asia.

Prince Bandar's stops included India, China, Pakistan and Malaysia. Prince Bandar, who has no spokesman, couldn't be reached for comment.

Malaysia, which is also Sunni-dominated, said this month it was willing to send troops to Bahrain, during a visit to Riyadh by Prime Minister Najib Razak. "Malaysia fully backs all sovereign decisions taken by Saudi Arabia and GCC states to safeguard the stability and security of the region in these trying times," Mr. Najib said in a statement.

...Military ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia go back decades. Pakistan receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year in Saudi aid, much of it in the form of subsidized oil.

The Saudi overture in Pakistan is a sign of how diplomatic friction in two distinct regions—the Middle East on one hand and Afghanistan and Pakistan on the other—could make it harder for the U.S. to pursue its goals of ending the conflict in Afghanistan, stabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan, limiting Iran's power and keeping a lid on violent turmoil in the Mideast.

Pakistani and U.S. relations were already souring in March before the U.S. raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, which Pakistan viewed as a violation of national sovereignty.

But Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, relies heavily on the U.S. The U.S. is Saudi Arabia's closest strategic partner. Last year Riyadh and Washington announced a planned $60 billion arms sale, the largest in U.S. history.

The U.S. provides Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region with an air and naval shield against possible attacks by Iran, with military bases in Qatar, Bahrain and the U.A.E.

Still, U.S.-Saudi relations have soured over the past decade. Saudi Arabia was opposed to the toppling of Iraq's Saddam Hussein because of his role as a bulwark against Iranian power. And Riyadh has been skeptical of the Obama administration's efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, among other disagreements.

Riyadh upset officials in Washington in another nominal proxy fight with Iran, in late 2009, when Saudi forces entered Yemen to clear rebels from their shared border. ...

...Saudis blame the U.S. in large part for abetting the push to topple Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The Saudis saw him as the last strong Sunni hedge against Iranian influence and fear Egypt's new government will be too friendly with Tehran...

From The NYT, 27 May 2011, by NEIL MacFARQUHAR:

...The Arab Spring began to unravel an alliance of so-called moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were willing to work closely with the United States and promote peace with Israel.

American support for the Arab uprisings also strained relations, prompting Saudi Arabia to split from Washington on some issues while questioning its longstanding reliance on the United States to protect its interests.       
The strained Saudi posture toward Washington was outlined in a recent opinion article by Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi analyst, in The Washington Post that suggested Riyadh was ready to go it alone because the United States had become an “unreliable partner.”...

From Bloomberg, 27 May 2011, by Alan Purkiss:

...Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, who heads the Saudi National Security Council, asked Pakistani generals in March to support the intervention in Bahrain....

The prince told the generals that the U.S. shouldn’t be counted on to restore stability in the Middle East or safeguard Pakistan’s interests in south Asia...

From WSJ, 16 May 2011, by Nawaf Obaid, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA:

A tectonic shift has occurred in the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

...For more than 60 years, Saudi Arabia has been bound by an unwritten bargain: oil for security. Riyadh has often protested but ultimately acquiesced to what it saw as misguided U.S. policies. But ...the Saudis recalibrate the partnership, Riyadh intends to pursue a much more assertive foreign policy, at times conflicting with American interests.

The backdrop for this change are the rise of Iranian meddling in the region and the counterproductive policies that the United States has pursued here since Sept. 11.

The most significant blunder may have been the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in enormous loss of life and provided Iran an opening to expand its sphere of influence. For years, Iran’s leadership has aimed to foment discord while furthering its geopolitical ambitions. Tehran has long funded Hamas and Hezbollah; recently, its scope of attempted interference has broadened to include the affairs of Arab states from Yemen to Morocco.

This month the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Gen. Hasan Firouzabadi, harshly criticized Riyadh over its intervention in Bahrain, claiming this act would spark massive domestic uprisings. Such remarks are based more on wishful thinking than fact, but Iran’s efforts to destabilize its neighbors are tireless.

As Riyadh fights a cold war with Tehran, Washington has shown itself in recent months to be an unwilling and unreliable partner against this threat.

The emerging political reality is a Saudi-led Arab world facing off against the aggression of Iran and its non-state proxies.

Saudi Arabia will not allow the political unrest in the region to destabilize the Arab monarchies — the Gulf states, Jordan and Morocco.

In Yemen, the Saudis are insisting on an orderly transition of power and a dignified exit for President Ali Abdullah Saleh (a courtesy that was not extended to Hosni Mubarak, despite the former Egyptian president’s many years as a strong U.S. ally).

To facilitate this handover, Riyadh is leading a diplomatic effort under the auspices of the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council. In Iraq, the Saudi government will continue to pursue a hard-line stance against the Maliki government, which it regards as little more than an Iranian puppet.

In Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will act to check the growth of Hezbollah and to ensure that this Iranian proxy does not dominate the country’s political life.

Regarding the widespread upheaval in Syria, the Saudis will work to ensure that any potential transition to a post-Assad era is as peaceful and as free of Iranian meddling as possible.

Saudi Arabia and USA: incompatible values, but still bedfellows

From BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 140, May 23, 2011, by Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum*:

[brief excerpts only - follow the link to read the full article]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Many in the West have looked upon the “Arab Spring” with hopeful optimism. But for the rulers of Riyadh the Arab Spring’s primary result has been a shaking of the strategic foundation and alignments that have shaped Saudi regional policy since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The Saudis had previously believed that they were the leaders, with US backing, of a united Sunni coalition against Shiite Iran. Now its partners have fallen by the wayside – Egypt appears to be dropping out, Bahrain is threatened, and the US is wobbly. And, US President Obama’s speech on May 19 did not calm the Saudis down.

...Conclusion

This is certainly a rocky period in Riyadh-Washington relations. As the US struggles to align its interests with its values, it finds it more difficult to support authoritarian monarchies like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

But values and interests do not neatly align themselves in international relations. While the US wants to favor democracy and oppose authoritarianism, the authoritarian Islamic regime in Riyadh still plays an integral role in long-term stability and assuring oil supply.

In October 2010, the US announced an arms deal with the kingdom worth over $60 billion. In early April 2011, the US Navy disclosed that Saudi Arabia had asked the US to prepare a proposal for the supply of warships with integrated air and Aegis missile defense systems, as well as helicopters, patrol craft and shore infrastructure. Even if this latter deal does not go through, it demonstrates that the long-term survival of the Saudi regime is still a major US priority in light of the mutual Iranian threat. And, the Saudis knew they could turn to America, indicating business as usual.

There are those who have counseled the administration to reach a new understanding with the Saudis that would lead to the establishment of constitutional monarchies in the region. But it seems the Saudis are in no mood for such talks, nor will they be for many years. The current King, Abdullah, is 87 years old and ailing. The Crown Prince, Sultan, is also over 80 and ailing. The next in line, Prince Nayif, is a known conservative. It is hard to conceive of the Saudi ruling family countenancing any power-sharing arrangement in the near future.

Thus, both countries [USA and Saudi Arabia] will have to continue strategic cooperation, even as their values continue to be at odds. When President Obama said in his speech “there will be times when our short-term interests do not align perfectly with our long-term vision of the region,” he was speaking about Saudi Arabia.

*Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, principal research associate at the IDC’s GLORIA Center, and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University. He is also a visiting fellow and contributor to the Task Force on Islamism and the International Order at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is Saudi Arabia and the New Strategic Landscape (Stanford: Hoover Press).

Arab states' concerns about Iran's nuclear program are revealled

From Washington Post, Monday, November 29, 2010; by Janine Zacharia:

TEL AVIV - Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed hope Monday that U.S. diplomatic cables revealing that several Arab states share his country's concern about Iran's nuclear weapons program could build momentum for tougher international action against the effort.

"More and more states, governments and leaders in the Middle East and the wider region and the world believe [Iran] is the fundamental threat," Netanyahu said, referring to disclosures in cables released by the Web site WikiLeaks. According to the cables, some leaders, including Saudi King Abdullah, have advocated using military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

"There's a gap between what they say privately and publicly," Netanyahu said at an annual gathering of the Tel Aviv Journalists' Association. Regional leaders read publicly from one "script" that says the "greatest threat is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Netanyahu said. "But in reality, leaders understand that this narrative is bankrupt...."

...The leaked documents show that "the entire world, not just Israel, is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program," wrote Sever Plocker, a commentator for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

The leak, he said, "strengthens the main message" of the United States and Israel that "Iran poses the greatest clear and present danger to the stability of the world, and the world has to act to remove this malignant tumor."

...Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and an adviser to Netanyahu on Israeli-U.S. relations, said the notion that the United States could not take tougher action on Iran without first moving forward on the Israeli-Palestinian front was undermined by the WikiLeaks disclosures...

Obama Should Withdraw from Afghanistan, not Iraq

From BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 115, October 7, 2010, by Prof. Hillel Frisch, senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The US can and should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan because there are other states capable of shouldering the burden of stabilizing the country, and the threat from Afghanistan to US security is no longer acute. Iraq, however, can be stabilized only by the US, and its long-term stability is a vital US interest with lasting and broad implications. Consequently, Obama should not be withdrawing troops from Iraq now.

President Barack Obama is making a serious mistake of potentially historical proportions in withdrawing from Iraq. He should reverse direction and withdraw from Afghanistan while staying put in Iraq. Failure to do so might spell the end of America’s preeminence on the world stage, a presence that is critical to global security.

The White House errs in focusing on the war against terror instead of focusing on more traditional concerns, like relations with and between states and mechanisms of maintaining regional balances of power. A reconsideration of the situation in Afghanistan with a balance of power prism leads to the conclusion that at least two emerging world powers, China and India, can be encouraged to become more involved in containing the Afghani situation. Rather than piggybacking on American taxpayers’ money – as Europe did in the Cold War under a US umbrella – these countries should be cajoled in assuming greater responsibility for the situation in Afghanistan.

Indeed, for the first time since the Cold War, other states could play the role of policeman in a battle in Afghanistan and could contain the risk of nuclear fallout in Pakistan. China and India have more to lose than the US in not coping with these problems.

Furthermore, Afghanistan is less important to America today for the following additional reason: Despite the formidable comeback of the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2005, and the expansion of the terrorist sanctuary there, terrorism against the West has actually declined. This draws into question the link between available sanctuaries and the protection of the US from terrorism.

Though it is true that a Pakistani-Chinese alliance supportive of the Taliban might emerge against the present Karzai regime, which would be supported by India and perhaps Iran, the costs of such instability would be borne by these states. They are sufficiently mature states to resolve the conflict without needing the US to shoulder the burden and drain its resources. A preeminent power should know where to get involved and where, at maximum, to use its good offices, in order to foster stability. America should take advantage of what the British Empire lacked during its very problematic involvement in the region in the 19th century – a regional array of strong states to cope with the fallout and tensions emanating from the Afghani crisis.

By contrast, no one in the Middle East can fill the place of the US if America withdraws from Iraq. Egypt, a state in relative decline, will be lucky if it can cope in the near future with its domestic problems. Saudi Arabia projects no effective power beyond its borders no matter how large the arms deal it signs with the US. The Gulf States are vulnerable to aggressive states, as the Iraq takeover of Kuwait proved a generation ago. All they can and should do is foot more of the bill for US protection.

Another regional power, Turkey, is a problematic player. Its relationship with the US since 2003, and increasingly since Prime Minister Erdogan’s reelection to office in 2007 during which he showed his Islamist colors, suggests that Turkey might become more of a problem for America than a solution to the fallout. Only Israel, a strategic ally of consequence, could conceivably play a role in aiding moderate Arab states in times of crisis.

The future of Iraq, by contrast, is a critical component in maintaining key US interests, if not its continued preeminence. The fall of Iraq could have a domino effect, threatening stability in Jordan and inducing the emergence of a Shiite corridor. Turkey could conceivably join the ranks of Islamic radicalism, alongside Iran, as it carves up the state of Iraq. An expanded Iranian presence in Iraq might embolden Syria to become an even more destabilizing force than at present.

Above all, a stable, pro-Western Iraq is necessary in containing Iran and preventing Saudi Arabia and the weak Gulf States from "bandwagoning" with Iran, just as Jordan was induced to join forces with Egypt’s Nasser in 1967. There is a palpable danger that the world’s major oil resources could then come under control of a nascent, undemocratic counter-alliance that could include China as well.

The facile idea that it does not matter who controls the oil because it would have to be sold in the international market place ignores the reality of a rising Chinese demand for energy sources. Such a control of oil would enable Iran to cut the supply of this crucial resource to democratic states like India. Politically motivated small cuts in oil supply to specific states could raise prices and damage relations between Western allies, making it more difficult for them to meet shared international challenges.

The implications of such empowerment, including the creation of a terrorist groundswell – with obvious ramifications for American allies in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Ethiopia, Egypt, Jordan and Israel - should not be underestimated. A failed Iraq would only increase the danger that Somalia and the potential state failures of Yemen and Lebanon pose to regional and world stability. In short, the state-directed terrorist fallout from Iraq is potentially far greater than from Pakistan/Afghanistan.

State-building in Iraq is doable, but problematic. The party that secured the most votes in the last election is led by Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite, while most of its voters were Sunnis. The Shiites and Kurds, two groups who have oil, know that they must come to terms with the Sunni minority in order to ensure that the oil reaches international markets, for the benefit of all Iraqis. In Afghanistan, the sharp societal disparities, the lack of a strong modern state tradition, and the mountainous terrain, render a solution to the state-building problem virtually impossible.

Does Obama have the political courage to re-assess his current direction and reevaluate America's troop deployments in line with true, long-term US national interests? As outlined above, these interests clearly require a long-term American presence in Iraq, while Afghanistan is the front from which he could relatively safely order a withdrawal.

How the Tide Could Turn Against Radical Islam

From BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 116, October 10, 2010, by Dr. Max Singer:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The driving forces behind the growth of Islamic radicalism –

• the Islamic revolution in Iran and
• the immense Saudi funding for spreading Wahhabism

– may not endure. By the end of this decade, the current strength of Islamism could be shattered.

US action is not required for the Iranian regime to fall – although it could be a big help.

On the other hand it is probably only the US that could convince the Saudis to hold onto their money rather than using so much to sell Wahhabism throughout the world.

It is important to understand that two quite possible developments could bring about a sea change in the worldwide confrontation with radical Islam....

...Since coming to power [in 1979] Iran’s Islamic revolutionary regime has been ...spreading Islamism throughout the Muslim world through religious/political leadership, inspiration and advocacy, terror and political violence, and national political measures.

...This possibility frightened the Saudi leadership, for whom Shiites were historic enemies. The Saudis felt compelled to compete with the Iranian revolutionary regime for leadership of radical Islam.

The result of this political pressure on the Saudi leadership, plus the great increase in their wealth following the oil price increases of 1979-1980, led to a multiplication of Saudi efforts to spread Wahhabism – the backward-looking Saudi version of Islam – throughout the world. Since 1980, Saudi royal family members and their beneficiaries have been exporting some $4 billion or more dollars a year to spread Wahhabi doctrines and influence throughout the world, from the US through Indonesia, from Chechnya and Bosnia through central Africa. One-hundred-and-twenty billion dollars for ...propaganda is a lot of money.

The result of this immense flow of resources from Saudi Arabia has been a complete transformation of religious and political life in the Muslim world. Wahhabism was a relatively small and somewhat despised element of Islam around the world in 1979. Today Wahhabi-controlled mosques, schools, preachers, and NGOs are a main if not dominant feature in both Muslim majority and Muslim minority communities in almost every country. Wahhabis control, for example, the great majority of Muslim institutions in the US – although certainly most Muslims in the US are not Wahhabis.

...The internal legitimacy of the Iranian revolutionary regime has in the last year become fatally undermined. There is a massive rejection of the regime by the general public because of its destruction of the Iranian economy, because of the forceful imposition of fundamentalist Muslim behavior on the general public, because of the corruption of the regime, and because of its use of violence against public protest of the stolen election last year. And the religious leadership of the revolution has become bitterly divided. Many of the highest religious authorities, and the original leaders of the revolution, have formally proclaimed that the current regime is no longer legitimate. The result has been thousands of defections, and purges, from the leadership of the regime, including the Revolutionary Guards.

It is quite possible that this fatally undermined regime could continue in power – on the bayonets of the Revolutionary Guard – for many years, especially if the outside world continues not to provide moral, political, or financial support for the internal opposition. But it is also possible that the regime will collapse or be overthrown this year or next, or the year after. While no one can predict when this will happen, it is certainly possible that the original engine of the expansion of radical Islam will disappear in the not too distant future.

...it is hard to understand why no democratic government has done anything at all to provide some moral and political support to the opposition or to provide small-scale, non-military assistance, such as communication equipment and Radio Free Europe-style broadcasts. The US in particular could improve the opposition’s position by speaking positively about Iranians imprisoned for political protest and treating the regime with mere diplomatic correctness and by ceasing its policy of going out of its way to demonstrate great respect for the regime. One cannot be sure, but it is entirely plausible that those Iranians trying to replace the regime would have an easier time if Iranians could see that a new regime would be welcomed by the democratic great powers. Iranians may have more respect for these powers, and especially the US, than we realize.

...The main requirement to end the flow of Wahhabi funds from the Saudis is for the US to recognize the harm being produced by these funds and appreciate its power to influence – even to compel – the Saudis into halting this activity. ...The basic US message would be, “Stop giving away so much of your money; keep it at home and use it for yourselves.”

...Despite all their oil money, and oil power, the Saudi leadership understands very deeply that they and their regime are weak and vulnerable, and that the US is infinitely more powerful. If the US comes to understand this half as well as the Saudis, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US could lead the Saudis to understand that they could expect America to continue to be their protector if they keep their money at home, but that the US would come to see them as an enemy if they continue to export their funds to promote Wahhabism in the world. Such a change would not have to take many years.

An Imminent Coup by Hezbollah in Lebanon

From the International Analyst Network, 18 Sep 2010, by Elias Youssef Bejjani:

A Saudi advice has delayed the return of Lebanon's PM, Saad Al Hariri, from Saudi Arabia to Beirut.

Meanwhile, 3500 Hezbollah militiamen are secretly deployed in the Eastern Christian region according to a report that was published yesterday by the "Beirut Observer" web site. Hezbollah has reached its final logistic preparations to execute an armed coup to take over all of Lebanon by force.

The web site attributed its information to well-informed sources in the Saudi media.

Below is a summary of the report with other related information:

Well-informed Saudi sources have confirmed to the "Beirut Observer" that the delay of Lebanon's PM return to Beirut came in response to advice by Saudi officials. The Saudis are extremely concerned in regards to information became available to them indicating that an imminent Hezbollah coup is in on the horizon. The Saudis are fearful that Hezbollah’s threats are not mere political rhetoric this time. The Iranian-armed militia has set all the needed logistic preparations for the coup and is only waiting for the zero hour.

According to the report, Hezbollah's planned coup will take a camouflaged cover of civilian protection this time. But the reality on the ground is that it will not be different from Hezbollah's bloody and cruel invasion of Western Sunni Beirut and Druze Mount Lebanon in May 2008. The coup will be initiated by putting government officials under house arrest. This will include Lebanon's PM, Saad Al Hariri, General prosecutor Said Mirza, Internal Security Forces General Director General Ashraf Rifi as well as many other officials and politicians. Sources said that Information Branch President Colonel Wesam Hassan will be spared from house arrest in the early hours of the coup.

The report went on to conclude that at the present time the centre of attention is a scheduled visit by a Saudi envoy to Damascus today and on the results of his talks with Syrian officials. The Saudi mission to Syria will focus on the current volatile situation in Lebanon, the avoidance of bloodshed, strife and and the repetition of what happened on May 2008. The Saudis fear that the impact of any military coup executed by Hezbollah in Lebanon will spread chaos over the entire region.

Private sources from Beirut unveiled that Hezbollah has deployed 3500 of its armed militia men along the Mediterranean coast in the Christian region from Beirut northwards through the cities of Junieh, Tabarja and Batroun. These bearded Hezbollah men are residing in chalets and apartments located in Christian areas and on standby alert status in case of any political development or security emergency that may require their armed intervention.

According to the report, a decision was taken by Hezbollah's leadership to invade Christian regions loyal to the March 14 Coalition, and subdue them by military force. Hezbollah's Leadership aim from such an invasion is to deliver a bloody intimidation message to all Lebanese who oppose its hegemony over the country. They want to prove on the ground that they have the upper hand, the sole power and the authority all over the country...

Follow this link to the Arabic report published yesterday by the Beirut Observer web site.

US massively arm Saudis against Iran

From: The Australian & The Times September 15, 2010:

WASHINGTON: The US is finalising the largest arms deal in its history: a $US60 billion ($64bn) package of fighter jets and helicopter gunships for Saudi Arabia...

...To put the deal's $US60bn price tag in context, however, total US arms sales between 2001 and 2008 were $US155bn.

Serious reservations are inevitable among senators who will view the deal as a challenge for Israel and the balance of power in the Middle East...

...However, the Israelis are buying the US's even more advanced F35 Joint Strike Fighter and will retain the military edge. Also absent from the Saudi package is the most sophisticated standoff long-range missiles for the F15s.

 "We appreciate the administration's efforts to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge, and we expect to continue to discuss our concerns," said Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the US.

The US also hopes to expand Saudi Arabia's defences as a deterrent to Iran's burgeoning medium-range ballistic missiles.

Boeing estimates that the deal will safeguard or create 77,000 US jobs.

But Aljazeera, in a shoddy op-ed by Teymoor Nabili in Middle East, on September 14th, 2010  complains ...about what?...

...Ignoring the fact that miltary aircraft ...are prettty [sic] much useless against a nuclear missile, especially one that does not exist, $60bn buys a mind boggling amount of firepower, so that must mean that Saudi Arabia's military capacity right now is woefully insufficent compared to Iran's, right?

Er, no.

Saudi military spending already dwarfs Iran's by a factor of six. Indeed, by head of population, Saudi is the world's biggest purchaser of military hardware.

... Iran's military is only superior in terms of manpower numbers.

So if Iran's intention is to send waves of soldiers marching across the desert, then maybe Saudi has something to fear. [Yes, and they've done it before: sending hundreds of thousands of pubescent boys to their deaths in the desert minefields, with plastic "keys to paradise" around their necks, in the war with Iraq - SL]

...the suggestion that Riyadh has something to fear from Tehran is laughable. [No, this op-ed is what's laughable - SL]

... the suggestion that Iran is keen to invade Saudi Arabia makes even less sense than the suggestion that Tehran intends to attack Israel.... the Arab world is much more concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than any Iran issue. [ha ha ha  - who are you kidding??? - SL]

And, as a major survey of the Arab public opinion [which survey?] found recently, the Arab majority ... is in fact very sympathetic of Iran's right to nuclear technology, with a majority saying a nuclear-armed Iran may in fact be a good thing for the region.

Arabs reject US appeals for confidence building gestures

THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 1, 2009 ,by AP and Herb Keinon:

"NO!!"...Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, Friday

Photo: AP

Saudi Arabia on Friday bluntly rejected US appeals for improved relations with Israel as a way to help restart Middle East peace talks. . .

President Barack Obama, Clinton and Mitchell all have been urging Arab nations to improve ties with Israel with confidence-building measures such as opening trade offices, allowing academic exchanges and permitting civilian Israeli aircraft to overfly their airspace as a way of demonstrating their commitment to peace.

US government sources have said in recent weeks that Obama's pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction has been accompanied by equal pressure on the Arab world to make some gestures of normalization toward the Jewish state at the beginning, and not the end, of the diplomatic process.

Obama's overtures to Saudi Arabia have, however, fallen on deaf ears so far, and a personal letter to Morocco's King Muhammad VI earlier this year to 'be a leader in bridging gaps between Israel and the Arab world' has not had any visible effect.

Clinton repeated the call in her remarks, saying the Obama administration wants "the Arab states, including our friends in Saudi Arabia, to work with us to take steps to improve relations with Israel, to support the Palestinian Authority and to prepare their people to embrace the eventual peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis."

"Saudi Arabia's continued leadership is absolutely vital to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace," she said.

A bipartisan group of more than 200 members of Congress delivered a similar message Friday to Saudi King Abdullah, urging him to drop opposition to the administration's appeal for intermediate confidence-building steps.

"We have been disappointed thus far to see the public reaction of your government to President Obama's request," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the monarch. "We urge you to assert a strong leadership role and help lead the Middle East to a new era of peace and reconciliation by stepping forward with a dramatic gesture toward Israel akin to the steps taken earlier by the leaders of Egypt and Jordan."

But Saud flatly ruled that out.... ....The Saudi stance is complicating Mitchell's efforts to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations....

Sanctimonious Saudis

My high-school literature teacher told me that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." But you have to empathise with DAVID M. WEINBERG's sarcastic exasperation in this, from THE JERUSALEM POST, Jul. 6, 2009:

His Royal Highness Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, the king of Saudi Arabia, works hard to get good press. He throws swell up-market galas, puts on grand interfaith conferences and finances numerous think tanks and lobbying firms. He also hands out fancy gold medals on thick gold chains - of which Barak Hussein Obama was a recent enchanted recipient.

Obama recently received a fancy gold medal on a thick gold chain from a Saudi King at the start of their bilateral meeting in Riyadh last Wednesday.

Every once in a distant while, the savvy Saudi king also pulls the best trick in the book. He lets loose a feeble - but tantalizing - hint about the remote possibility of a theoretical chance that he might, someday, under exceptional circumstances and only if he unconditionally gets his way, begrudgingly accede to some faint warming of ties with Israel.

It's a soft lob, a pain-free ploy, Saudi sophistry at its best. Yet the ruse works wonders. Speak very vaguely and indirectly about peace with Israel, and presto! You're in Washington's good books. You're now a peace process "leader" with a diplomatic "initiative" in your name. No concrete follow-up required. No need to put your money where your mouth is.

Not that the king doesn't know how to act decisively, or spread around a few American dollars, when he needs and wants to.

The Saudis hauled in truckloads of cash to buy the recent elections in Lebanon to ensure a Sunni (i.e., non-Hizbullah) victory. They've bankrolled Lashkar e-Taiba (of Mumbai infamy), Hamas and other radical Islamic movements worldwide when it suited them, while brutally crushing other groups, like al-Qaida, when these became a threat to them.

They've openly embraced, then bluntly cold-shouldered, different Palestinian and American leaders, as per their changing interests. Riyadh also funds madrassas and mosques the world over to aggressively promote its purist Wahhabi brand of Islam.

THUS, SAUDI KINGS and princes know how to make things happen, when they want to.

So, if King Abdullah, really wanted to lead the Arab world toward peace with Israel, he could find a way or two to express his "moderation" more clearly and make things happen.

But the sanctimonious Saudis always seem to hew to the PR minimum. When they had a 9/11 image problem (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, remember?), then-Crown Prince Abdullah nattered to The New York Times about "full normalization" with Israel in exchange for "full withdrawal" from the territories. It sounded pretty good. In a flash, Abdullah transformed the discourse from Saudi involvement in terrorism to Saudi peacemaking.

However, as Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Dayan Center has pointed out, by the time the Abdullah trial balloon reached the Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002, the initiative had been modified and its terms hardened. It watered down "full normalization," rewarded Syria with a presence on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and enshrined a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel.

Since then, the sangfroid Saudis haven't been willing to bat an eyelash at Israel. But the dodge worked so well that today the Obama administration is touting the Saudi "led" Arab peace initiative as a cornerstone of its regional peace diplomacy.

The only problem is that the supercilious Saudi king doesn't really want to lead. He can't even bring himself to give President Obama some rope with which to entice, or hang, Israel. According to news reports, Washington can't seem to squeeze any commitments about normalization from the Saudis, even if Israel freezes all settlement activity and paints the Jerusalem Old City walls in the Saudi national colors.

NOW, NOBODY was expecting the supreme Saudi king to come to Jerusalem, God forbid, Anwar Sadat style. Nor could we reasonably expect Abdullah to offer cash for resettling Palestinian refugees outside of Israel. Nor will he likely curtail the vicious anti-Israel propaganda pumped out daily to the Arab world by his Middle East Broadcasting channel (MBC) or through films like the malevolent Saudi-produced Olive Dream. Naw, that would be asking too much.

But Abdullah might have, and still could - if peace truly was his goal - authorize a meeting of Israeli and Saudi academics on desertification and desalinization or other nonpolitical environmental matters. He could quietly allow the opening of a low-level Saudi commercial interest section in a Tel Aviv-based foreign embassy, as some of the other Gulf states have already done. He could send us a Rosh Hashana card.

Heck, Israel would settle for something simple, like approval for El Al to fly over Saudi airspace en route to New Delhi and Beijing. We would even be willing to refrain from serving kosher food, flushing toilets and playing "Hava Nagila" on the speaker system as our Zionist planes traverse the sacrosanct Saudi heavens.

But no. King Abdullah can't countenance such muffled gestures toward Israel. Not even for his friend Obama.

Now here's a thought: Perhaps Obama isn't pressing the Saudis and other Arabs hard enough about normalizing ties with Israel? Perhaps Abdullah has the impression that Obama is going to "deliver" Israel to the Arabs, and wrest from Binyamin Netanyahu a settlement freeze, then withdrawals and then a handover of Jerusalem? Where oh where could Abdullah have possibly gotten that impression?

*The writer, DAVID M. WEINBERG is director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

US Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit

From The new York Times, May 30, 2009, by ERIC LICHTBLAU:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is supporting efforts by the Saudi royal family to defeat a long-running lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Justice Department...said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.

The government’s position comes less than a week before President Obama is scheduled to meet in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah as part of a trip to the Middle East and Europe intended to reach out to the Muslim world.

...family members of several Sept. 11 victims said they were deeply disappointed and questioned whether the decision was made to appease an important ally in the Middle East. The Saudis have aggressively lobbied both the Bush and Obama administrations to have the lawsuit dismissed, government officials say.

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, a leader of the Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. ...Bill Doyle, another leader of the Sept. 11 families whose son was killed in the attacks, said, “All we want is our day in court.”

The lawsuit, brought by a number of insurance companies for the victims and their families, accuses members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia of providing financial backing to Al Qaeda — either directly to Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, or indirectly through donations to charitable organizations that they knew were in turn diverting money to Al Qaeda.

A district court threw out the lawsuit, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provided legal protection from liability for Saudi Arabia and the members of the royal family for their official acts.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan ...noted that the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

...Justice Department officials declined to address the issue of whether the timing of the brief was related to Mr. Obama’s trip to Riyadh...

Saudis blame Hamas amid calls for talks with Fatah

From The Guardian, Thursday 1 January 2009, by Ian Black, Middle East editor:

Saudi Arabia yesterday blamed Hamas for Israel's continuing offensive in the Gaza Strip and urged it to resolve bitter differences with the western-backed Palestinian Authority - even as divisions deepened with a new charge of treachery.

Arab League foreign ministers meeting in emergency session in Cairo warned it was not possible to help until the Islamist movement in control of Gaza returned to national unity talks with its rival Fatah.

A furious Hamas attacked the Arab League stance as "pathetic". Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum also accused Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, of ordering members of Fatah in Gaza to gather intelligence on the whereabouts of Hamas leaders to pass to Israel ....

Discussions between Arab states were sharp too, amid bickering over calls for an emergency summit conference in Qatar tomorrow. "Everyone is watching as the intensity of Arab-Arab disputes increase," warned the league's secretary general, Amr Moussa.

......Syria and Gulf maverick Qatar want a summit. But they met fierce resistance from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the western-backed Arab states that are most hostile to Hamas....

Islamophobia

From JPost, by Isi Leibler November 27, 2008 [with my own, necessary emphasis added - SL]:

The interfaith conference of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia which took place under the auspices of the United Nations received wide acclamation. President Shimon Peres went to the lengths of telling the Assembly that he wished that "King Abdullah's voice would become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people". The World Jewish Congress published a full page advertisement in The New York Times praising the monarch who leads one of the most oppressive and anti-Semitic regimes in the world.

To their credit, the Saudis were upfront about Israel, stressing that Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni were present by virtue of their UN membership and not by Saudi invitation, and that the King would not engage in any contact with them. And, despite his somewhat servile remarks in praise of Abdullah, Peres was strongly criticized by the Saudi foreign minister.

As a reward for groveling to King Abdullah, the World Jewish Congress was invited to the conference after the Saudis had the chutzpa to brazenly inform them that major Jewish organizations - including the American Jewish Committee, the Presidents Conference, and the Anti Defamation League - were "too political" and would thus be excluded! It was shameful and unprecedented for a reputable Jewish organization to participate at an interfaith conference at which outsiders like the Saudis were able to veto who represents the Jewish people.

It was even more outrageous that the Jews who did participate in the event failed to challenge the behavior of the Saudi regime or even relate to the vicious anti-Semitism which dominates Saudi society. After all, it was Wahhabi preachers from Saudi Arabia who initially provided the inspiration for al Qaeda, until the latter turned on the Saudi leaders, accusing them of corruption and collusion with the US and Western world. To this day, Saudi money is utilized to promote global jihad.

This interfaith activity must also be viewed in the context of the global campaign launched by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the umbrella body representing 57 Moslem states, to criminalize any criticism of Islam - including Shar'ia law.

The members of the OIC include the most tyrannical and repressive states in the world. Many deny human rights to their own citizens and brutally persecute non-Islamic religious minorities, denying them freedom of worship. Even purportedly moderate Islamic countries such as Egypt endorse domestic campaigns inciting their citizens to hatred of non-Islamic minorities, concentrating in particular on promoting the crudest forms of anti-Semitism.

Some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, also seek to globally extend the application of Shar'ia law, which incorporates barbaric practices such as stoning adulterous women to death, decapitating blasphemers, homosexuals and apostates, and cutting off limbs as punishment for petty theft.

The OIC bitterly complains that Islamophobia in Western countries is rampant and escalating. Yet taking into account that global terrorism today emanates overwhelmingly from Islamic fundamentalists - including those born and bred in the societies hosting them - it is surely a tribute to Western communities that they continue to peacefully co-exist with their Moslem minorities.

Without detracting from the obligation to combat hatred against Moslems and all minorities, the reality is that despite protestations to the contrary from liberals, Moslems residing in Europe face far less institutionalized discrimination than what other migrant groups, including Jews, underwent in the past. Moreover, they are not targeted by terrorists - in contrast to European Jews, their mosques and schools do not require round the clock security guards.

It is also astonishing that some Moslem organizations have the impudence to demand an end to security profiling, though over 95 percent of global terrorist acts originate from radical jihadists. Profiling is undertaken exclusively as a pragmatic means to maximize security and is not related to racist bias. If red-headed individuals committed the bulk of terrorist acts it would surely not be unreasonable to profile redheads for security screening. It is even more bizarre that demands to ban profiling are frequently supported by liberals, including paradoxically, Jews who themselves represent the prime targets for acts of terror.

The OIC campaign has made considerable inroads, with the UN Secretary General recently boasting that "in confronting the Danish cartoons [caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad] and the Dutch film FITNA, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be breached." In other words, violence, murder and blackmail have succeeded in forcing impotent Western governments to appease radical Islamist forces, even at the price of compromising hitherto sacrosanct commitments to freedom of expression.

Resolutions calling for criminal prosecution of anyone criticizing Islam or Islamic practices have already been formally adopted by the inappropriately named UN Human Rights Council and subsequently by the UN General Assembly. The discredited UN Human Rights Council, which concentrates the bulk of its efforts on delegitimizing Israel, has now formally endorsed a resolution prohibiting any discussion during its proceedings that could be deemed to be critical of Islam, Moslem practice or Shar'ia law. Yet this same body has shamelessly avoided condemning human rights violations including the genocidal killings by the barbaric Islamic Sudanese government at Darfur.

The current priority for the Human Rights Council is to ensure that the forthcoming Durban II conference is transformed into a launching pad for resurrecting the previous Durban anti-Semitic hate fest demonizing Israel.

The structure of the Durban 2 Preparatory Committee says it all. The chairman is a former Libyan ambassador who described Israel as "the most tyrannical regime in the world," and he is backed by an Iranian deputy chairman. The Committee held one of its most important meetings on Yom Kippur to ensure that Israelis and Jews would not participate. In its recently released Final Document for Discussions, undisguised bias is reflected in the language employed. It refers to "Israeli apartheid," the "racist Israeli Law of Return", Palestinians as "victims of Israeli racism," and so on.

This abominable body is simultaneously proclaiming that "the most serious manifestations of the defamation of religion are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening situation of Moslem minorities throughout the world."

It is incomprehensible why it took until now for Israel to recognize that Durban 2 is controlled by our most venomous enemies and is intended to serve as a global platform for promoting anti-Semitism and Israel bashing. Had we from the outset supported the Canadian decision to boycott this bogus conference, the Americans and many other democratic nations might also have resolved to distance themselves from these hate mongers.

To offset these challenges, Israel must seek to create alliances with democratic nations and NGOs. Likewise, where possible, Diaspora Jewish organizations should seek out moderate Moslem groups with whom to promote genuine interfaith relationships. But such activity must be transparent. Those who accept as a precondition to dialogue the exclusion of Israeli participants or restrictions on discussion relating to Israel are harming the Jewish cause, providing respectability to extremists and marginalizing moderate Moslems.

Without diminishing our ongoing efforts to outlaw hate crimes or incitement against all minorities, including Moslems, we must resist OIC attempts to pressure Western countries into criminalizing criticism of religion which, aside from being an unprecedented restriction of freedom of expression, would also deny us the opportunity of exposing Islamic extremism.

A Textbook Case of Incitement to Hatred and Genocide

From Slate, July 21, 2008, by Anne Applebaum [my emphasis added - SL]:

According to a report put out by the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom last week...

...Here, for example, is a multiple-choice question that appears in a recent edition of a Saudi fourth-grade textbook, Monotheism and Jurisprudence, in a section that attempts to teach children to distinguish "true" from "false" belief in god:

Q. Is belief true in the following instances:
a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers.

The correct answer, of course, is c). According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook, it isn't enough just to worship god or just to love other believers—it is important to hate unbelievers as well. By the same token, b) is also wrong. Even a man who worships god cannot be said to have "true belief" if he loves unbelievers.

"Unbelievers," in this context, are Christians and Jews. In fact, any child who sticks around in Saudi schools until ninth grade will eventually be taught that "Jews and Christians are enemies of believers." They will also be taught that Jews conspire to "gain sole control of the world," that the Christian crusades never ended, and that on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill Jews.

These passages, it should be noted, are from new, "revised" Saudi textbooks. Following a similar analysis of earlier versions of these same textbooks in 2006, American diplomats immediately approached their Saudi counterparts about the more disturbing passages, and the Saudis agreed to conduct a "comprehensive revision … to weed out disparaging remarks towards religious groups."

The promised revision—hailed, at the time, as a great diplomatic success—was supposed to be finished by the beginning of the 2008-09 school year and was accompanied by a Saudi PR campaign. .... But although the beginning of the 2008-09 school year is nearly upon us, the only textbook revisions have been superficial, and the most disturbing part of the message—that faithful Muslims should hate Jews and Christians—remains.

...Saudi school textbooks ...are written and produced by the Saudi government and subsequently distributed, free of cost, to Saudi-sponsored schools as far afield as Lagos, Nigeria, and Buenos Aires, Argentina. Americans are not the only ones who worry about their influence. In Britain, a small political storm began last year when British mosques were found to be distributing Saudi books that called on Muslims to kill all apostates.

Still, even if U.S. diplomacy is a legitimate response to this peculiarly insidious form of propaganda, it clearly isn't a sufficient response. Far more significant, and surely more effective, would be a unified response from the rest of the world's Muslims, the vast majority of whom do not share Saudi views and do, occasionally, say so. The Hudson Insitute report cites a few of them, outside as well as inside Saudi Arabia. It would be useful, for us but especially for them, if they would say so more often and more loudly.

...Make sure that children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Islamic schools all around the world have decent fourth-grade textbooks. It might save a lot of trouble later on.

Saudis Pushing U.N. Resolution Denouncing Israel

From the New York Sun, June 13, 2008, by BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter:

UNITED NATIONS — Amid reports of a widening rift between Saudi Arabia and America, Riyadh's diplomats at the United Nations are pushing for passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements, a move that would likely force an American veto, which in turn could alienate American allies in Europe.

When the Saudis initiated a recent meeting with Arab ambassadors and proposed a resolution denouncing an Israeli decision to build hundreds of new housing units in two Jerusalem neighborhoods, some diplomats here raised eyebrows.

...America traditionally has vetoed similar resolutions, saying they do not help such negotiations, [a Western diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity] noted. "Maybe the Saudis, who are not council members, want to embarrass the Americans."

...Washington has urged oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to increase supply. But Saudi officials say the weak dollar and Israeli hints of an impending military attack on Iran, not declining production, are to blame for high prices.

The dispute over oil appears to be part of a larger rift between the two countries, with a London-based Arabic-language newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, reporting recently that relations have reached their lowest point in years.

Some Riyadh watchers trace the shift to a National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear progress, published in December. The report convinced the Saudis that America was not going stop Iran, a Saudi foe, from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the president of the Jerusalem Policy Center for Public Affairs, Dore Gold, said...."They don't want to hear from Condi Rice about diplomatic progress between Abbas and Israel. They want to know what America is doing about Iran."

... "We'll see what they come up with," one European diplomat said. "Our position on the settlements is very clear: We oppose them."

If France, Britain, and other European council members voice their support, the resolution could drive a wedge between those countries and America, which has denounced the Israeli decision but is unlikely to allow the council to interfere with direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs.

America will evaluate any council proposal "on several criteria," an American U.N. ambassador, Alejandro Wolff, said. "Will it contribute to resolving the underlying problem or, conversely, is this designed simply to embarrass, to isolate, to impede, and to obstruct progress?"

Griffith University's misplaced tolerance

From The Australian, by Rachael Kohn, John Cleary and Stephen Crittenden of ABC radio:

IN response to (Griffith University vice-chancellor) Ian O'Connor: (He) seems to be falling into the trap that is sometimes evident among those who wish to advance the cause of tolerance and understanding between religious communities.

In seeking to construct a dialogue, they are blind to profound differences, and in doing so they trivialise them and render the discussion meaningless. For example, O'Connor's equation of Wahhabism and Salafism with Unitarianism is utter nonsense.

Unitarianism emerged as a liberal Christian movement and gained ground in the early years of American democracy. Its foundational beliefs include that man has the ability to exercise free will in a responsible and ethical manner, that human nature in its present conditions is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved, and that no religion can claim a monopoly on the Holy Spirit of theological truth.

These humanist and inclusive beliefs are in no way expressed by the Wahhabist and Salafist versions of Islam. Indeed, the home of Wahhabism and Salafism, Saudi Arabia, not only continues to outlaw conversion to religions other than Islam, it does not even permit public worship of other faiths.

As for its humanist content, Saudi Arabia continues to trample the human rights of women, who are banned from libraries and unable to access work, travel, study and marriage without the approval of their fathers, brothers and sons.

O'Connor's acceptance of Saudi Arabian government funding is premised on an argument that serves the interests of Saudi Arabia, in providing a "legitimate alternative to their country's more conservative policies". One would have to wonder whether O'Connor has unwittingly become a conduit for Saudi Arabian propaganda, and then ask why the Saudi Government does not choose to establish such research institutes in its own country, where they are needed.
It isn't difficult to find the answer, which is that the authoritarian, theocratic state of Saudi Arabia really has no interest in becoming a liberal democracy.

The result of such sloppy thinking is that what is now happening in the West is that the institutions of liberal democracies, such as Griffith University, risk becoming havens for highly conservative imported versions of Islam that really have no place in a country with a religious culture and society shaped by humanist values and the rules of democracy.

I hope that the authors will also critique their own colleagues in the ABC with such clarity!

...also see previous postings on this issue: Griffith University "Foolish -- at best" and Australian University promotes Islamofascism

Griffith University "Foolish -- at best"

From The Australian Editorial, April 23, 2008:

The Saudi Government has bankrolled hardline Islam

QUEENSLAND'S Griffith University ...has been foolish -- at best -- in virtually begging the Saudi Arabian embassy to bankroll its Griffith Islamic Research Unit for $1.3 million. So naive was director Mohamad Abdalla that he wrote to Saudi ambassador Hassan T. Nazer offering to keep the controversial deal secret ...And in a letter dated September 11, 2006, vice-chancellor Ian O'Connor noted Griffith was "rapidly becoming a popular 'university of choice' for students from Saudi Arabia".

....What is disturbing ...is Saudi Arabia's track record of bankrolling radical Islam. When it was launched in 2005, Dr Abdalla, who was born in Libya and lived in Jordan before coming to Australia where he completed his science degree and PhD, said the unit's main aim was "to promote a Wasatiyya or 'moderate' Islam". In offering scholars the chance to study Islam in depth, the unit is a worthwhile academic venture, given the increasing significance of Islam on the world stage.....

...[Griffith Islamic Research Unit ] states one of its aims is "cultivating an informed public opinion that will lead to a more ...pluralistic Australian society". It wants "to bring ...lasting change in our communities". Australians could be forgiven for wondering why it is our society that needs changing when the unit is being partially funded by a nation that espouses hardline Islam, policed by the Mutaween or religious police. Some in the Islamic community fear the funding could skew the unit's approach and create sympathy for an extremist ideology -- Wahabism -- which is widely espoused in Saudi Arabia and by al-Qa'ida.

Unfortunately, the university has not been upfront about the matter, and Queensland District Court judge Clive Wall has every right to raise his concerns. Last year, Ross Homel -- then director of Griffith's key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance -- said the university did not chase money from the embassy and that the $100,000 down payment was offered with "no strings" attached.

Documents obtained by The Australian contradict this, with Professor O'Connor offering the embassy the chance to "discuss ways" in which the money could be used and Griffith staffers speculating about "How do we get extra noughts on this cheque". Such a cap-in-hand approach to a nation that despises all manner of freedom, including academic freedom, does not encourage confidence. The funding of such units should be transparent and any conditions attached to it acknowledged publicly.

Australian University promotes Islamofascism

From The Australian, Richard Kerbaj April 23, 2008:

A JUDGE has likened Griffith University to hardline Islamic "madrassas" in Pakistan - notorious for breeding radicals - and accused the Queensland institution of promoting a Muslim ideology espoused by Osama bin Laden.

Queensland District Court judge Clive Wall also accused Griffith of becoming an "agent" through which the Saudi Arabian embassy was propagating extreme Islam.

...Griffith asked the Saudi embassy in Australia for a $1.37 million grant for its Islamic Research Unit, even telling the ambassador that certain elements of the controversial deal could be kept a secret.

... Griffith - described by vice-chancellor Ian O'Connor as the "university of choice" for Saudis - offered the embassy a chance to "discuss" ways in which the money could be used.

... Judge Wall yesterday accused Griffith of becoming a Saudi stooge. "They're using the university as an agent to promote their bigoted brand of Islam," he said. "I'm concerned that a country which doesn't itself tolerate freedom of religion is promoting its own quite bigoted version here with the acquiescence of our learning institutions."

..."Like many people, I follow what's out there around the world and I was just concerned in particular about the source of the funding being Saudi Arabia. I'm concerned that a university which is in my area is not being entirely frank about what it's doing." Judge Wall accused Griffith's management of being "naive" in accepting Saudi funds, which have historically been linked to the propagation of fundamentalism.

The Saudi Government - largely through its embassy - is believed to have funnelled at least $120 million into Australia since the 1970s to bankroll radical clerics, build mosques and propagate hardline Islam. "I don't think the university should be involved in any way with these people," Judge Wall said.

...September's report in The Australian prompted Judge Wall to inquire about the nature of the fund and how it was intended to be used. He wrote to ...the Islamic unit - raising questions about the branch of Islam the university wanted to propagate.

"You have said that the Saudi grant to the Griffith Islamic Research Unit will be used to promote 'moderate Islam'," says Judge Wall in the letter obtained by The Australian. "What do you mean by 'moderate Islam' and what do you understand is the difference between moderate Islam and Wahabi Islam or Wahab-ism (sic) or 'hardline' purposes?"

.... But he never received an answer. "I'm a little concerned that I've received no response from the university to my letter," Judge Wall said. "They seem reluctant to discuss the matter."

Griffith did not return several phone calls from The Australian yesterday....

Saudi Arabia and Tehran Step into Gaza Crisis

From a DEBKAfile Special Report, January 29, 2008, 11:33 AM (GMT+02:00):

On the sixth day of the Palestinian surge out of Gaza into northern Sinai, Egyptian intelligence is discovering that, far from being chaotic, it was minutely planned by the fundamentalist Hamas group which rules the Gaza Strip.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, each of the estimated half a million Gazans in flight, one-third of the total population, received a $300 grant, which accounts for the shopping spree they could suddenly afford. Hamas was therefore willing to spend $150 million on a maneuver for seizing control of an enclave in northern Sinai.

Egyptian border troops were forced to stand aside by this mass of surging humanity. Dozens were injured by gunmen shooting from inside the mob. Early Monday, Jan. 28, Cairo deployed a border guard brigade in the northern Sinai town of El Arish, to hold the line against the spread of the Palestinian tide into the largest town in the peninsula. It is calculated that if the Palestinians take over El Arish, they will use as a springboard to advance on Egypt proper.

Egyptian forces have in the last 24 hours, apprehended 30 Palestinians on their way to the Suez Canal armed with weapons, explosives and devices for monitoring Egyptian and Israeli security communications, and a second group heading for the unfenced 220-km Egyptian-Israeli border.

DEBKAfile’s military sources also report that Cairo has, without making a public announcement, clamped an economic blockade on El Arish, closing down shops, hotels, restaurants and gas pumps, to make the town less attractive to the roving Palestinians than their own towns in Gaza.

In Riyadh, meanwhile, Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal is holding talks Monday with the Hamas bureau chief Khaled Meshal, summoned from Damascus where the conference of 17 rejectionist Palestinian organizations has just ended. This conversation will prepare the ground for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s meetings in Cairo Wednesday with a Hamas delegation.

The Saudi government backs Hamas. Therefore Faisal and Meshaal are expected to agree on a formula for resolving the crisis that will keep the Gaza-Egyptian border terminal of Rafah open to traffic under the joint control of Egypt, Hamas and a token Palestinian Authority presence. The Saudis will use this formula as the key to unlock their long-sought objective of a process of reconciliation between Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah and the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority. The Saudis will bring all their clout to bear to persuade Abbas to drop his conditions for negotiations with Hamas on the reconstitution of a Palestinian national unity government.

Tehran, for its part, sent Iran’s foreign ministry director general Ali Asghar to Cairo Sunday, Jan. 27, to put its oar into the standoff. He was quickly received by Egyptian foreign minister Aboul Gheit. For three decades, Egypt and Iran have not had formal diplomatic relations, but in the last two months, their government ministers have met frequently and, last week, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad phoned Mubarak to discuss how Tehran could cooperate in solving the Gaza border issue.

Asghar brought to Cairo, according to our sources, an offer to airlift tons of foodstuffs and medicines to El Arish airport for Egyptian authorities to distribute to the Palestinians. This step would bring Iranian airplanes into the Egyptian-Israeli border region for the first time. Iran would thereby claim a stake in the lives of the Palestinians living around Israel’s borders for the entire Arab world to see...

...In any case, Mubarak knows that a tough Egyptian crackdown on the Palestinians and their Hamas leaders would spark violent protests in his own streets by the Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood...

....Hamas and its terrorist confederates have now acquired a safe haven on Egyptian soil, out of Israel’s reach, much like Hizballah’s enclave north of the Litani River or al Qaeda’s across the Afghan border in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Saudi Arabia and Iran are not expected to rob them of this prime strategic advantage, despite the dangerous precedent of a terrorist organization capturing Arab land twice in seven months – Gaza from the Palestinian Authority and an enclave in northern Sinai from Egypt.

The ME ‘Peace Process’ Corpse Twitches

From the Arab News (Saudi Arabia), Tuesday 23 October 2007, by Gwynne Dyer:

“We are at the beginning of a process,” said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after her four-day tour of the countries closely involved in the Arab-Israeli confrontation. But the “peace process” really began with the Oslo accords in 1993, and it died when Ariel Sharon became prime minister of Israel in 2001. The last nail was hammered into its coffin with the takeover of the Gaza Strip this year by Hamas, which flatly rejects the idea of Palestinian and Israeli states living side by side. Rice can make the corpse twitch, but she cannot make it walk.

....The Islamist parties and groups that are the main opposition to the existing regimes in most Arab countries have always condemned the idea of making peace with Israel. Their organizations are illegal in many countries, but their views on Israel are very popular. In some 30 years of trying the Islamists have not managed to win power in any Arab country, either through elections (where that is theoretically possible) or by revolution, but now they have the wind in their sails. The exploits of the Islamists who have come to dominate the anti-American insurgency in Iraq, and more recently Hezbollah’s success in withstanding the Israeli assault in southern Lebanon last year, have made them the heroes of the Arab street, and given Islamist parties everywhere a better chance of gaining power.

It has already happened in the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ seizure of power there last June has effectively split the Palestinian proto-state in two — and Hamas refuses to accept the permanent division of Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states. How can Israel do a deal with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, when he only controls the West Bank and cannot deliver Hamas’ consent to the deal?

Even those Israelis who genuinely want a deal are increasingly reluctant to hand over territory in return for peace, since they cannot be sure that the regimes they are dealing with will stay in power. What if Israel finally gave the Golan Heights back to Syria in return for a peace treaty, and then a few years later President Bashar was overthrown by Islamists who repudiated the treaty and remilitarized the Golan?

Even existing peace treaties are at risk. What if the Islamists were to come to power in Egypt one day? In the 2005 election the semi-legal Muslim Brotherhood (it can run candidates in elections, but only as “independents”) increased its seats in Parliament fivefold, from 17 to 88, despite the usual vote-rigging, media manipulation and intimidation. One of its promises, if it was elected, was to hold an immediate referendum on the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. In such a referendum, Egyptians would probably vote to cancel the treaty.

It really is over: There will be no comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace deal in this decade. In the next decade, there could even be a war.