Jewish World Review Sept. 3, 2002 / 26 Elul, 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

With 'eternal friends' like these | If sucking up to the House of Saud were an Olympic event, George W. Bush would be a contender for the gold.

He was at his fawning best last week, when he hosted the Saudi Arabian ambassador, Bandar bin Sultan, for lunch in Crawford, Texas. The ambassador, who showed up with six of his children, was treated to what The New York Times called "the full ranch treatment" -- a meal of grilled chicken and biscuits, followed by a personal tour in the president's pickup of the 1,600-acre ranch. The White House PR staff released photos of the two men chatting and Bush's spokesman sang Bandar's praises. The Saudi envoy is "a very seasoned diplomat," Ari Fleischer gushed, "a very affable fellow, very good humor, speaks English better than most Americans."

Hours earlier, Bush had phoned Crown Prince Abdullah and urged him to ignore the growing expressions of anti-Saudi sentiment in the United States -- exemplified by the Rand Corporation analyst who had recently told a key Pentagon advisory board that the Saudis "are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader."

Such talk, Bush assured Abdullah, "cannot affect the eternal friendship between the two countries."

Can Bush honestly believe that there is "eternal friendship" between the United States and the country that supplied 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers? Certainly most Americans don't believe it. A nationwide poll released last week shows that 63 percent of the US public has a negative opinion of Saudi Arabia, up from 50 percent in May. And that's *after* the Saudis spent several million dollars on a coast-to-coast advertising and lobbying blitz aimed at winning American hearts and minds.

"In the war on terrorism we all have a part to play," says the narrator in one of the Saudi ads. What he doesn't say, but what many Americans have figured out, is that the part being played by Saudi Arabia is not that of a loyal ally or dependable friend, but something closer to a callous and unscrupulous adversary.

Why have Americans so thoroughly soured on Saudi Arabia? It isn't just because most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis, or because two-thirds of the Islamist militants being held in Guantanamo are Saudis, or because Osama bin Laden himself is (or was) a Saudi.

It isn't just because Al Qaeda's terror network is bankrolled with Saudi money -- including, The Times of London reported last week, $300 million in "protection money" paid to Osama bin Laden by senior members of the Saudi royal family.

It isn't just because Saudi Arabia is the world's foremost purveyor of fanatical Wahhabi Islam, the fuel that propels Islamist terror, or because the Saudi media disseminates repugnant anti-American and antisemitic slanders, or because Saudi ambassadors and clergymen sing the praises of suicide bombers.

And it isn't just because the Saudi regime, which owes its survival to American troops, refused to let the United States use Saudi bases for attacks against the Taliban, and says it will refuse as well to cooperate with any military campaign against Iraq.

All of these fuel American antipathy toward Saudi Arabia. But more significant perhaps than any of them is the widening realization that the values and aspirations of Saudi society are fundamentally at odds with the values and aspirations of our own. Virtually everything our civic culture venerates -- religious and political tolerance, freedom of speech and expression, constitutional self-government, liberal democracy, equality of the sexes -- Saudi culture abominates. The Saudi princes run an intolerant and repressive totalitarian theocracy -- backward, bigoted, and closed. There may be no country on earth with which we have *less* in common.

"Eternal friendship" between the United States and Saudi Arabia? President Bush undermines his own credibility when he talks that way; he comes across as phony and morally unserious. The root of the American-Saudi relationship for the past half century was not friendship but self-interest -- we needed their oil, they needed our protection. But the United States imports far less Saudi oil than it used to and the threats that imperiled Saudi Arabia in years past -- Nasserist radicalism, Shiite fundamentalism, Iraqi aggression -- have faded. The great threat in the Middle East today is Islamist fascism, and Saudi Arabia is not its target but its source.

For years, US support for the Saudi regime has been justified on the grounds that it was vital to preserve stability in a volatile part of the world. But as Michael Barone observes, "Stability in the Middle East gave us Sept. 11." What is called for now is some constructive instability -- a board-clearing upheaval that will dislodge the dictators and fanatics who encourage terrorism and menace world peace. What Saudi Arabia needs most is not the full ranch treatment, but a change of regime.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

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

08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
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