Last Tuesday, I wrote in this column about the Festival of Heritage and Culture (Al-Janadriyah), and began with the speech of King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, who criticized the veto at the Security Council, which blocked the Arab plan to end the bloodshed in Syria. In the evening, I returned home carrying newspaper clippings from around the world, and a translated digest of the Israeli press, in addition to reports and studies mostly published by American think tanks; in fact, this is what I do on every working day. As I read the material collected for me by Al-Hayat's Research Unit from the American press, I was struck by an editorial in the Washington Post entitled “The Saudi King's Hypocrisy”, which mentioned that on the same day the king spoke at Al-Janadriyah Festival, the Saudi security forces were firing at protesters in Qatif, killing one for the second day in a row. The editorial also tackled the controversy surrounding Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari. I condemn the killing of any protester in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and elsewhere, and I hope that Hamza will be invited to repent and will not be jailed. I write this without reservations in a newspaper owned by a Saudi prince that the Americans know very well, and I would like to add that I do not have a special relationship or interests with King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, except that I know him well. The King gave me his first interview with the press (along with another colleague) when he succeeded his brother Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz, Rest in Peace. We also share a funny episode that dates back to three years ago, when he promised me to ‘go halves' with me if he won the one million riyals on the famous television program. I want to write a rebuttal to the American editorial, this time with the title “The Washington Post's Hypocrisy”. I call on this prestigious newspaper, which is liberal in everything except those issues that concern Arabs and Muslims, to respond to me with all the strength it can muster if I am mistaken, but to remember before doing so, that the protesters in question owe their allegiance to Iran, and that Saudi Hezbollah killed 29 U.S. soldiers in the Khobar bombing in 1996. In fact, the perpetrators and the sentences they received are known to the American authorities, but it seems that the death of Americans becomes unimportant when Israel stands to gain. The odd thing is that colleague Arfan Arab asked me yesterday in an interview with the BBC about WP's editorial, and I said that it would be the subject of my article today. The Washington Post expressed solidarity with two Saudi protesters who were killed (and I have condemned their death above), but it fails to voice its support for one million Iraqis killed by the George W. Bush administration, in a war that was waged on fabricated premises, endorsed by the Washington Post itself, because extremist Likudniks like Charles Krauthammer and Jackson Diehl are contributors in its Op-Ed page. Iraq was attacked for oil-related and Israeli reasons and Diehl was at the vanguard of the instigators and enablers of the war. I have with me an article written by James Bovard from the Future of Freedom institute. The article is a fully documented condemnation of the role the Washington Post had played in the run-up to the Iraq war. Diehl is the Deputy Editorial Page Editor in the Post, so I ask this: Is it acceptable that an extremist Likudnik is put in charge of this page, when he is a person who accuses Abu Mazen of not being interested in negotiations? I accuse Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet members of being fascist professional liars, and racists who want to expel the Palestinians from their own country, which is by the way all the land from the River to the Sea. To the Likudnik Diehl I say that his call for recognizing Israel as a ‘Jewish state' is chutzpah, Because Israel never existed, its prophets are a lie and there are no Israeli archaeological traces whatsoever in our countries. The difference between me and Diehl is that he writes as his extremism dictates, while I note down what I learned at the American University of Beirut and Georgetown, or the correct history of a fake state and a hybrid people that came from all over the world, established by Ashkenazi Jews of Khazari extraction. Krauthammer, meanwhile, is even worse and more fanatical than Diehl, if this is at all possible, while many others are welcomed in the WP's op-ed page as long as they attack Arabs and Muslims. Is there any other country in the history of the world where every single Prime Minister has changed his or her family name, because he or she is a mongrel? Even as I write this, I accept a Palestinian state on 22 percent of Palestine, and this is the difference between a peace advocate like me and warmongers like them. I know King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz and they do not. I know that he cannot be a hypocrite even if he tries, and then challenge them to prove that he has ever said something that he was not honest about. Please let the reader note here that I am not saying that Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz is the hero of war and peace, the pioneer of Arab nationalism or the Khalid bin al-Waleed of his time. I am not praising him here, and all I am doing is recording personal qualities of his, because I know him and they do not. Then, the Washington Post laments the death of two demonstrators, even though it had taken part in killing one million Iraqis, whose blood stains the hands of the newspaper's extremists. [email protected]
