Ayoon Wa Azan (Saudi Arabia And The West)
Jihad Al Khazen Al-Hayat 2005/05/21
The Saudi (American) Institute organized a debate in London two months ago under the title: "The West must remain Friends with the House of Saud". Dr Michael Scott Doran sat in the opposition team next to a writer and a researcher at the University Of Tel Aviv, known to be hostile to Saudi Arabia. On the opposite team, two former US ambassadors, a British ambassador to Riyadh and a historian sat on the other side, all four approved the debate's title.
Doran has always been in the opposition/hostile; his articles, conferences and interviews blend venom and lubricant. All his publications aim at sowing dissension between the US and Saudi Arabia. This is why he was nominated to join Elliot Abrams in the National Security Council "to manage the Israeli-Palestinian file", to promote policies such as advocating war on Iraq, demoting the substance of the Palestinian cause, adopting Bernard Lewis' radical line and hostility to Saudi Arabia. All those who supported Doran's appointment to the National Security Council were neo-cons, hostile to Arabs and Muslims.
There is no great difference between appointing Abrams and his Deputy Doran in the National Security Agency to be in charge of the Middle East file in the NSC, and the appointment of two officials from the Israeli Likud party, selected by Ariel Sharon. Today I will not talk about Elliot Abrams since I have written much about him in the past. I will only mention Doran, who is not only a supporter of the Israeli Likud party and known for his anti-Arab and anti-Islamic opinion, but also a dedicated member of the opposed side. All his writings reflect a hostile feeling, especially against Saudi Arabia. There is no doubt that Doran is well-informed, educated and follows his subject. However, one can say that he knows about people without knowing them. He is much similar to the state of the art IT American espionage, which excludes the human factor on the ground. It turns out that technology alone is not enough and no matter how much the spying satellites are accurate, nothing can replace the human naked eye. This could be the reason why Americans are facing difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other similar place.
Doran wrote an important article in Foreign Affairs magazine about Saudi Arabia. Its importance stems from the fact that it fell in the attentive ear of the American administration. I do not wish to present the article, since I refuse to promote any of Doran's ideas; yet I like to note that Doran pretends that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is divided between those camps: the reformist Crown Prince, an American ally, and the Conservative minister of Defense, a staunch ally of Islamists.
Is there a single Saudi citizen, who would agree with Doran's claim? Ahead of Prince Abdullah and Prince Nayef there is King Fahd; between the two there is Prince Sultan, then Prince Salman and all the others. Back to Doran and his way of simplifying the situation in the Kingdom, or rather making it superficial. Doran is distantly familiar with Saudi, just like the spying satellite. In parallel, I personally know Prince Abdullah and Prince Nayef. My meetings with Prince Abdullah are fewer and briefer compared to those with Prince Nayef, who I meet every time I visit Jeddah or Riyadh. Our encounter usually starts at midnight and never ends before sunrise, time for the dawn prayer.
Based on my personal knowledge, I can say that the Crown Prince only follows the orders of the King. In turn, the Minister of Defense executes orders received from the Crown Prince. The traditional and well-known hierarchy prevents the establishment of any power centers, as those mentioned by Doran. Prince Nayef repeatedly told me that Muslim Brotherhood groups stabbed the Kingdom in the back. In numerous press conferences, he stressed that they were ungrateful to Saudi Arabia, His stance was further underlined through his campaign against radical terrorist groups. How could he say all this while making alliances with "radicals" against "reformists"? Once again I say that Doran is well-informed and I do not question his academic proficiency. However, I would like to note that his expertise in our countries' affairs is purely academic and it lacks the direct personal touch and contact, many people like me, who meet regularly with Saudi leaders, have by their line of work.
In a previous article under the title "Somebody Else's Civil War", Doran makes a comparison between the objectives of Al Qaeda and those of Hamas, which he describes as a terrorist Palestinian faction. He says that the ideology of Hamas stems from the Egyptian Salafi ideology. Hamas and Al Qaeda share a troubling fear of the world. The Umma - the universal Islamic community- and real Islam are threatened by the proliferation of western secularism, the western Crusade policies and the Zionist repression (in other article, Doran says that the Palestinian cause is not the central issue).
Is there more than one Hamas organization? Is Doran speaking of the same Hamas know? Once again, Doran is confused, he mixes different issues. Or is he just starting from a hostile ground, since he is not familiar with people, just books and reports?
I personally know Khaled Mishaal and all the political leaders of Hamas. I met with them all and we had the chance to talk in length. I repeatedly asked my brethren to stop the suicide bombing operations, as I registered the call in their offices and wrote it in my daily column. However, Hamas do not bear a resemblance to what Doran describes. It has no link with Al Qaeda. Hamas is national liberal organization, while Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Linking the two is a Likud attempt to stain the reputation of Hamas. Should the writer be impartial, and not looking through his tendency, he could have noted that Hamas is fighting solely Israel. Hamas' charter prevents it from targeting its enemy outside the areas of confrontation, while Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that targets innocent civilians worldwide.
Is it possible for an expert writer to be uninformed of the difference between Hamas and Al Qaeda? I insist that Doran's comparison is meant to serve Israel's interests. If it was to serve the interests of Isaac Rabin's Israel, then it would have been reasonable. But, serving the interests of Ariel Sharon's Israel can only be placed under the label "defending Sharon's terrorism against the Palestinians". Doran could have established a more accurate comparison between Al Qaeda and Sharon's government, since they both carry out terrorist acts against school girls and tourists.
In his article, Doran sorts out Saudis in two camps, just as he divides Muslims between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims. Both are supposedly confronted in a civil war. The innocent US is paying the price of the civil war of others, this explains the title.
Doran also wrote about the differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites, i.e. the Shiite minority compared to the Sunni majority in Saudi Arabia, and the Sunni minority compared to the Shiite majority in Iraq. Doran wrote an article about the issue last December claiming that Saudis have some internal divergences, this is why they are channeling their troubles towards the US. Had Doran written his article yesterday, he could have excluded the conclusion that abolishes his opinion. He pretends that "the tendency of Saudi politics, for the past eighteen years, undermines the theory that the Sunnis are being recruited by Al Qaeda".
All American military reports during the past few days and all the electoral processes in Iraq confirm the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq. The New York Time last Sunday published an article under the title "The Majority of Martyrs in Iraq and Saudis". Finally the neo-cons and supporters of the Likud party in the US are serving the interests of Israel, as opposed to the interest of "their country" and our countries.
|
