Orchestrated campaigns of hate must cease

Recently, Princess Haifa Al Faisal, wife of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., was questioned for rendering financial help to needy Saudi citizens who are alleged to have links to the September 11 aggressors, implying that Princess Haifa's donations were meant to finance terrorists. But investigations revealed that there are no such links. Princess Haifa expressed her anger over this accusation saying that donating money is part of the practice of Islam and that she only wanted to help those in need. The Arab press focused on this issue.

Commenting on the incident, Othman Meirghani writes in Asharq Al-Awsat (UK based) that there are groups in the U.S. that attack Saudi Arabia and lobby for a review of U.S.-Saudi ties. This lobby has made a big issue about Princess Haifa's donation to a lady married to a Saudi residing in San Diego. It asked for an investigation into Saudi Arabia's support to terrorism and claimed that the donated amounts went to the September 11 attackers, says Meirghani.

It was clear from the statements of some Washington officials that this issue has deliberately been stirred up as the U.S. investigation department has questioned Basanan and Bayoumi, the Saudis accused of having links with the September 11 attackers. The department released the two after it found that there was no such link. Had the department discovered such a link, it wouldn't have released them, adds Meirghani.

Further, if the department could not prove any link between Basanan and Bayoumi and the attackers, why then are some Congress members accusing the Saudi Ambassador and his wife of supporting terrorism, asks Meirghani.

In fact, the criticism against Saudi Arabia started before the September 11 attacks, which the Zionist lobby used to attack Arabs and Muslims because of the acts of a minority that is not only hostile to the U.S. but also to all the regimes in the region, adds Meirghani.

These Israeli groups lobbied against Saudi Arabia since the latter pressed the American administration to solve the Palestinian issue. Moreover, Riyadh has managed to convince U.S. President George W. Bush to support the establishment of a Palestinian state and has succeeded in presenting a peace plan agreed to unanimously by all Arabs. But Israel has always rejected all peace plans, says Meirghani.

Since the September 11 attacks Saudi Arabia has been accused of not cooperating in the war against terrorism, or of supporting terrorism. Some studies by American researchers recommended that Saudi Arabia be classified as an enemy. Therefore, it is but natural that these voices are using the opportunity to make an issue over Princess Haifa's humanitarian donation, concludes Meirghani.

If the donation to a needy Saudi family is considered terrorism because this family helped a student who was an acquaintance of the September 11 attackers, then a number of others who had any contact with the person at any point in time should also be judged guilty of the same charge and detained, writes Saleh Al Qallab in Asharq Al-Awsat.

This claim is illogical because it requires anyone who donates money to first refer to the CIA to know whether the poor person has any link to the terrorists and to predict whether this person will become a member of a terrorist organisation in the future, adds Al Qallab.

According to this logic, the American university in which this student was studying, the professors who taught him, his colleagues, owners of the houses in which he lived, and the restaurants which he visited, the consulate which granted him an entry visa, and the immigration officers who approved his application, should all be accused of having links with terrorists, says Al Qallab.

Moreover, since the American media revealed that the visa of Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 attackers, was renewed after the attack, then instead of causing a furore over the donation of the princess, the American departments should be blamed for negligence, adds Al Qallab.

Elaborating on the issue, Al Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) says in its editorial comment that the crisis between the U.S. and the Islamic world has reached a peak, especially since Washington does not want to acknowledge that the use of power might work with regimes but not with individuals.

This is especially true since many Muslims find that the U.S. is hurting their beliefs, supporting their enemy, and does not care for the Israeli assaults against Palestinians. All these factors have increased the Muslims' hostility towards the U.S., adds Al Riyadh.

But what is most dangerous is associating Islam with terrorism, as Americans claim that every penny donated to the poor is actually sent to the extremists. This implies that Washington wants to annul zakat and stop all charitable activities, says Al Riyadh.

But the U.S. should not believe the claims made by the American extreme right wing. Washington should stop attacking countries that are helping it combat terrorism so that its friendship with these continues, adds Al Riyadh.

In addition, if the U.S. does not want to provoke one billion Muslims, it should open doors for dialogue. Following in the footsteps of the extreme right wing will only lead to an increase in the number of terrorist cells, and then no one will be able to stop the conflagration that will result from this, says Al Riyadh.

The U.S. has the ability to alter this situation either by changing the Congress and media whose actions have created mistrust in the American regime and people. It can stop considering Israel as a country that advocates peace in a world of terrorism. It can also collaborate with the Islamic factions that oppose extremism, adds Al Riyadh.

Otherwise, this will only lead to an impasse, especially as Washington's attacks are not confined just to Muslims who are hostile to the U.S, but to all Muslims - business people, government officials, and the middle class - who are now frightened to enter the U.S. having seen that all Arabs and Muslims are tarred with the same brush and are in danger of being detained. This could provoke a reaction in the Islamic world, with similar treatment being meted out to Americans here, concludes Al Riyadh.

But Dawood Al Shryan views the issue differently. Writing in Al Hayat (UK based), he says the objective of the campaign against Saudi Arabia in the American media is not to incite the American people against Saudi Arabia and tarnish its image. Instead, the objective is to convince the world that Saudi Arabia finances terrorism.

The accusations began by targeting ordinary people and charity organisations, finally touching the royal family. Tarnishing the image of Saudi Arabia, suing Saudi citizens and organisations, and demanding Saudis compensate the families of the September 11 victims are not part of the campaign's goals, adds Al Shryan.

Instead, these are only tools to realise its main objective, which is to diminish Saudi Arabia's role in supporting, financing and sponsoring Islamic organisations around the world and create an impression that Saudi Arabia has contributed towards financing terrorist organisations and extremists, says Al Shryan.

Thus, the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and sponsoring these organisations will change as also the mis