I rarely leave my office for a couple of days without returning to find that a large number of stories involving Saudi Arabia were gathered on my behalf by the research department in Al-Hayat and my personal assistant. As I read this material, I remember why al-Mutannabi called his son ‘The Envied'. Before I continue, I want to say that I do not praise Saudi Arabia in my article today, but rather attack the other side. I have never claimed, nor do I do so today, that Saudi Arabia is a democratic country by Western standards. Rather, I call for more openness and full equality for Saudi women in rights and duties. Saudi women have proven to be as competent, or more competent, than their male counterparts, and the results of university exams are sufficient proof of this. The events in Qatif spawned a flood of news stories, after the tenth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. The resurgent Houthis in the south also prompted the publication of more material. I thus came to read a similar volume of news stories, as though their writers happened to be on location covering the events. These writers said everything but did not mention the instigator, who is the same in the east and the south. I also read that the British insurance company Lloyd's filed a lawsuit for 215 million dollars as payment to the families of the victims of 9/11, arguing that Saudi Arabia is responsible for those attacks. This issue spawned many news stories which all failed to mention that Saudi Arabia was a victim of terrorism before the United States was, and that the U.S. government had dealt with the foreign mujahedeen in Afghanistan before they turned to terrorism, because of its anti-Arab anti-Muslim policies, especially against the Palestinians, and its bias in favor of Israeli terrorism. But the joy of those who welcomed the news of the lawsuit did not last for very long. Less than a week later, Lloyd's dropped the case for lack of evidence that can be admitted to court. However, the evil cabal quickly found another issue. As such, an ad in Canada by the Ethical Oil Institute (that's what it is called) defending the extraction of petroleum from Canada's oil sands was distributed. The ad also attacked restrictions on women's freedoms in Saudi Arabia. Once again, I am not defending Saudi Arabia. There indeed are restrictions, and I am one of the advocates of lifting them all. However, what I am doing here is expose the other party's false claims, ill-intentions, and diseases. There is no ethical or unethical oil. Oil pollutes the air when it is burned, but Saudi oil extracted from deep underground is the backbone of industry in the whole world. However, petroleum from oil sands pollutes the air many times more than conventional oil, starting with the destruction of the surrounding environment when it is extracted. Since this is oil that is as unethical as the people behind the ad, there was a need to distract people away from its massive adverse effects on the environment by invoking Saudi women, who are an easy choice because their rights are indeed incomplete. I wish that King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz had taken office when he was sixty years old. For one thing, he is a reformist who has always surprised enviers with his decisions, such as his decision to grant Saudi women the right to vote in municipal elections. The New York Times and the Washington Post both ran acceptable editorials that welcomed the King's move, while drawing attention to other rights that are yet to be granted to Saudi women. But I was surprised to see that the Christian Science Monitor, which is usually objective, found nothing to say about this move except that it's ‘too little, too late'. But isn't little better than nothing? Meanwhile, the American rightwing and Likudnik media could not take the shock. The Washington Times, an extremist newspaper, ran an editorial entitled (literally): “Saudi Arabia denies women the vote”, and below: “King's suffrage decree was merely a PR stunt”. The same newspaper ran an article written by a woman called Shireen Shakouri entitled, “Still no Arab Spring for Saudi women”. Instead of welcoming the King's decision, she chose to list the rights that Saudi women did not yet receive. Of course, if she had praised King Abdullah's decision, her article would not have been published by an immoral Likudnik newspaper. Another extremist website, which attacks Islam and Sharia every day, went even further with an article entitled, “Women Can Vote in Saudi Arabia – So What?” The article completely ignored the whole decision just to say that women will still have to walk to the polling stations because they are prohibited from driving. I have run out of space. I will thus conclude with another campaign claiming that Saudi Arabia is distributing schoolbooks in Britain and worldwide containing anti-Semitic slurs. This accusation is in fact nothing new, and is rather seasonal and is often brought up whenever a Saudi achievement makes the news. If the cabal wants something new in this regard, let them check the book by the great Israeli activist Nurit Peled, to be released this month. The book contains examples of Israeli racism against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in Israeli schoolbooks. Now this is new. As for the same accusation against Saudi Arabia, this is as old as Israeli terrorism, occupation, killing, dispossession of Palestinians and the theft of their homes. To them I say: May your envy consume you. [email protected]
