Veto a State, Lose an Ally

Veto a State, Lose an Ally
By TURKI AL-FAISAL
Published: September 11, 2011

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.
. . .
American support for Palestinian statehood is therefore crucial, and a veto will have profound negative consequences. In addition to causing substantial damage to American-Saudi relations and provoking uproar among Muslims worldwide, the United States would further undermine its relations with the Muslim world, empower Iran and threaten regional stability. Let us hope that the United States chooses the path of justice and peace.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former director of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to the United States, is chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

This Prince is a pretty highly placed individual. Can we assume that he speaks officially for Saudi Kingdom?

What he offers is continued support against Iran and Hezbollah and Syria's Bashar al-Assad, in exchange for US support for a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders in the UN. Or else, Saudi Kingdom will remove support for Iraq, thus leaving US to get stuck there as a buffer against Iran. And "might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen".

Hmmm! Whose alliance pays off more for US? Saudi Arabia or Israel?

reply to post by pthena


What Saudi Arabia says on the international arena and what it does behind closed doors contradicts itself. Saudi Arabia is not about to loose their biggest ally America! Saudi Arabia can't afford to.

reply to post by bluemirage5

So the news piece is for public comsumption and something else goes on secretly?

That may be the case, since:

Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States,

When Bahrain, Shiite majority country ruled by a Sunni king, had its own popular uprising, military crushing of the people was publicly criticized by US State department, yet allowed with no sanctions.

Libya, oil producing country, had to be overthrown when government killed the people.
Bahrain, host to US naval fleet, gets a verbal warning when the government killed the people.
When Libya allegedly used "African mercenaries", that was further crime requiring regime change.
When Bahrain accepted Saudi forces to kill Bahrain's Shia protesters, no need for regime change of tyrant.

Yeah, public vs backroom. I'm sure democracy is effective government when the people are totally left out of the loop in policy decisions.