It is extremely important that clear distinctions are drawn in any analysis of the United States, particularly in respect to the media and the attitudes and behavior of private citizens. This is essential if we are seeking to understand statements and accusations made through the media. Sometimes members of Congress and other institutions voice their opinions or suspicions or even make allegations that are personal views. Being an elected member of Congress does not mean that every time one of these representatives says something, he or she is speaking on behalf of the US government or the American people. The same is true of law enforcement and other citizens.

In fact, very often, such people align themselves with people, with whom they share personal and private interests and they will lend their voices and individual reputations and prestige to shared causes. It is debatable whether or not such practices are ethical.

Yet, it is clear, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution that such people have the right to free speech, political association and even the right to dissent or disagree with the official government position on an issue.

To those who are not familiar with US society or with the rules and laws in this respect, it may not seem logical that prominent people would take controversial positions.

It may seem strange that people would publicize controversial ideas and suspicions simply to advance their own personal or group agendas and ideas, particularly when it might compromise or hurt their country’s relationships with important friends and allies. The truth of the matter is that this happens very often and unfortunately those outside of the country often mistake such people’s opinions for official government positions or attitudes of a majority of the American people which is a mistake.

The suspicions that have dogged the US-Saudi relationship since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States stem from the fact that a good number of those who allegedly participated in the attacks were of Saudi origin. This led to other theories, one of which says that it was Saudi religious interpretations that fueled the attacks. Others say that it was either direct or indirect Saudi financial support for terrorists, through its many charitable ventures, that facilitated the 9/11 terrorists, making it possible for them to carry out such attacks. Many theories have been suggested to explain the supposedly indisputable fact that the majority of those who carried out the attacks where in fact Saudi citizens. So long as these suspicions are repeated over and over by the media and those who would like to see US-Saudi friendship and cooperation end, these various theories lurk like shadows that only need the least amount of instigation to become animated.

It is surprising that the Saudi government has never sought to refute these allegations. The claim that so many of the attackers were of Saudi origin is based upon identification that was supposedly found in the homes of the attackers and in their personal belongings etc., following the attacks. Many might remember that almost immediately following the attacks a list of the terrorist suspects was released that was almost entirely Saudi. It was not until family members protested, denying the allegations and pointing out that some of the accused were still alive, that the media backed off. With recent identity scams being unveiled in the US and abroad, it might be a good time for the Saudi government to check again and make sure that the claims that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi is actually true, and can be proven. If this cannot be proven, it might be time for us all to step away from the previous emphasis on where the attackers originated, and pay closer attention to where future attackers might be hiding.

There are people, both here in the United States and abroad, who might find it in their interest to continue attempts to poison US-Saudi relations by continually repeating and placing emphasis on the allegation that a majority of the Sept. 11 attackers were Saudi. We should not allow them to succeed. They would have others believe that all or most of Saudis hate Americans, so Americans should hate Saudis. Those who promote this type of hatred might believe that such instigated cycles of hate might lead to cycles of violence, such as we are witnessing now in Palestine.

One way we might save ourselves from such madness is simply to refuse to be provoked by it. We must not allow it to make us so angry or frightened or to stimulate such pride in us that it causes us to say or do things that might perpetuate cycles of hatred. If we are interested in taking proactive steps to better relations between our two peoples, we might spend our time examining ways to come together on joint projects that suit the qualities of out two nations and our two great peoples.

Presently the United States is involved in various humanitarian projects in the Middle East and Africa and has pledged continued support for development efforts in many of the world’s poorest nations, including Afghanistan.

Working together and with others who share our goals to rid the world of poverty and disease and illiteracy, we can demonstrate our beliefs which has a much greater impact than just talking about what we believe.

For religious people Christians and Muslims, this is a perfect way to fulfill religious obligations to not only aid the poor, but also to return evil with good and to always work for peace. For others it is an opportunity to share in these traditions of giving and peaceful cooperation between disparate groups that is the hope and desire of all good people.

— Anisa Abd El-Fattah is an editor at the Middle East Journal.

Arab News feature article 28 November 2002