Jewish World Review Feb. 1, 2002 / 19 Shevat, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Turn the Saudis -- THE newest source of tension in the increasingly strained Saudi-American relationship is the revelation that nearly two-thirds of the 158 Al Qaeda terrorists being held at Guantanamo are citizens of Saudi Arabia. Prince Nayef, the Saudi interior minister, is demanding that the prisoners be turned over to Saudi officials, "since they fall under the kingdom's regulations."

Exactly which regulations those are Nayef doesn't say. Perhaps they are the ones that have kept Riyadh from extraditing the 13 Saudis indicted for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 US soldiers. In any case, Nayef had no intention of apologizing for the ongoing involvement of Saudi citizens in terrorism. On the contrary, he was indignant that anyone might accuse Saudi Arabia of having unclean hands.

"We have become," he was complaining Tuesday at a meeting of Arab interior ministers, "the accused and the victim all at once . . . before the answer to the following question becomes clear: Who did this? Individuals? A group? A state or states?"

The answer to "Who did this?" may be a mystery to Nayef, but most Americans are clear on the Saudi connection to Sept. 11. They know that Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the September hijackers, that Saudi sympathizers helped bankroll Al Qaeda's terror network, and that Saudi diplomacy helped legitimize Afghanistan's vicious Taliban dictatorship. Many of them also know that the Islamist extremism and anti-American hatred that fuels bin Laden's terrorism has its roots in Saudi Arabia and is ardently promoted by that country's Wahhabi fundamentalists.

But what many in the United States find especially infuriating is the posture the Saudis have adopted since the massacres. Cynical, unhelpful, disingenuous, and self-righteous, Riyadh has made plain its distaste for the US war against terrorism. It refused to allow US aircraft based in Saudi Arabia to attack Afghanistan. It will not permit any attack on Iraq to be launched from its territory. Insultingly, the Saudis officially deny that American forces are even in their country and do not permit the US flag to be flown at the American air base near Al Kharj.

Saudi Arabia is conventionally described as an important US ally. Increasingly, Americans aren't so sure. In a survey conducted last October by Zogby International, only 24 percent of respondents expressed a favorable view of Saudi Arabia; 58 percent said their opinion was unfavorable. Similarly, only 22 percent characterized Saudi Arabia as a "very good" or "generally good" ally. (By way of comparison, 52 percent of those polled identified Israel as a good ally.)

And that was three months ago. If Zogby were to repeat its poll today, it would undoubtedly find that Americans think even less of Saudi Arabia now.

It isn't only the American-in-the-street who has soured on the Saudis. US Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, commented bluntly on Jan. 15 that it might be time to pull our troops out of the desert kingdom "and find a place where we are much more welcome openly -- a place," he added pointedly, "which has not seen significant resources flowing to support some really extreme, fanatic views." Other members of Congress agree.

In an interview this week with two US newspapers, Crown Prince Abdullah -- Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler -- claimed that "there has been absolutely no change" in relations between his country and the United States. "Our relationship has been very strong for over six decades, and I don't see any reason why there should be a change." Of course Abdullah knows better -- he himself wrote to President Bush last summer that the two countries were "at a crossroads" and that it was "time for the US and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests." If it was true then, it is even truer now.

In the interview, Abdullah proclaimed himself a friend of America, yet expressed no shame or chagrin that so many Saudis were involved in last September's slaughter. He spent much of the session berating the United States for its policy toward the Palestinians, but never once acknowledged the horrific Palestinian terrorism that has murdered so many innocents. He attributed his pro-Palestinian advocacy to his "sense of humanity" and dislike for "oppression" -- then turned around and stoutly defended his kingdom's primitive repression of women. "There is no inherent discrimination against women," he lied, "and no limitation to how far women can go in our society."

Saudi-watchers have long known that Abdullah is no friend of the United States, and nothing in his interview suggested otherwise. What is clear that Saudi and US interests no longer coincide. We are fighting a war against radical Islamist terrorism, while Saudi Arabia nurtures and exports the religious fanaticism on which the terrorists feed. We aim to destroy Al Qaeda, while many Saudis -- including members of the royal family -- are among Al Qaeda's strongest backers.

So Washington has a choice. It can continue its policy of deferring to Riyadh, and wait for the inevitable day when US troops are asked to leave. Or it can adopt the approach it took with Pakistan, and force Saudi Arabia to sharply and immediately change course -- or be regarded by the United States as an enemy. On Sept. 11, Pakistan was the Taliban's closest supporter and a key source of arms and recruits for Al Qaeda. By Sept. 14, its arms severely twisted by Washington on Bush's orders, it was fully enlisted in the US war on terrorism.

Saudi Arabia can be turned around, too. But first Bush has to give the order. Can he do it?

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe