Fouad A Al-Farsy. American-Arab Affairs. Issue 26, September 1988, Washington.

It is unrealistic to pretend in international relations (any more than in personal relations) that if we understand each other, we will always agree with each other. But it is certainly true that if we fail to understand each other, it is impossible even to move towards agreement.

The subject of my talk today is contemporary issues in Saudi-U.S. relations. The purpose of my talk is to explore the common ground between us, the areas where we agree; to identify the areas of disagreement; and hopefully to make a small contribution to enlarging the common ground and diminishing the problems.

Our Common Ground

Let us first summarize the common ground between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America.

At the most fundamental level, the majority of people in both the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are united by a common morality, the basis of which is religious in nature. The shared belief in the dignity of the individual human being is a moral value common to the three great monotheistic religions which were first propagated in the Middle East. The relevance of a shared system of moral values cannot be emphasized too greatly in an assessment of the relations between our two countries.

Perhaps the most obvious example of the shared value system is to be found in our common commitment of aid to nations which have not been blessed with material wealth.

Since 1974, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been one of the largest-donors of foreign aid, both in relative and in absolute terms. In relative terms (as measured by the percentage of GNP contributed in foreign aid), the top three positions are shared by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait (7 percent of GNP). In absolute terms, only the United States of American surpasses Saudi Arabia — and of American aid no less than $4 billion goes to Israel alone. Saudi aid given to developing countries grew from $335 million in 1973 to more than $3 billion in 1978.

In addition to bilateral aid, Saudi Arabia is a major contributor to the Islamic Development Bank, the Arab Bank for African Development, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, the Red Crescent (the Moslem equivalent of the Red Cross), multilateral emergency funds, UNESCO and the World Food Program. Under the leadership of King Fahd, the Saudi aid program has been increasingly directed towards addressing the pressing economic and social problems of Africa.

Now let us look at the political arena. In the world of politics again we find large areas of common ground. Saudi Arabia has, as a primary political objective, stability in the Middle East. For reasons which we shall come to later, the Middle East is a highly volatile region of the world. Both the United States and Saudi Arabia are opposed to those elements in the Middle East (political or religious) which are committed to destabilizing the region. As Saudi Arabia is a major supplier of the West’s energy and a major purchaser of Western services, it is in the interests of both the United States and Saudi Arabia that the causes of tension should be reduced by diplomatic means whenever possible.

In terms of economic interdependence, the case is clear. Because the Kingdom holds 25 percent of the Western world’s oil reserves and because the Kingdom, in its determination to develop its economy for the benefit of its citizens, needs the expertise of the West, there is an economic interdependence which binds our two countries together. Saudi Arabia’s oil supplies are crucial to the economies of the Western world. Equally, Saudi Arabia is a major customer for the Western world’s expertise, goods and services. It is in the interests of both the United States and Saudi Arabia to maintain and strengthen these economic ties.

In furtherance of the protection of our common interests, the United States of America has emerged as the Kingdom’s principal supplier of military equipment. The inter-relationship between oil supplies, military sales and the extensive banking activities between our two countries has served to cement our mutual interests over an extended period of time.

So far, I have mentioned some of the main areas of common interest. A study of the history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will confirm that, in the exploitation of oil and in the development of the Kingdom’s infrastructure and industry, Saudi Arabia has looked to the United States as a major supplier of advice, expertise and qualified manpower. As the West has purchased the Kingdom’s oil and as the Kingdom has purchased the West’s skills and expertise, a mutually beneficial relationship has developed.

The development of the Kingdom’s oil resources, in particular, laid a firm foundation for co-operation between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The formation of the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO), originally known as Caltex, brought Saudi Arabians and Americans together in the exploitation of the vast oil reserves of the Kingdom. Today co-operation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the major American oil companies is still a significant factor in the world’s oil markets.

The Israeli Problem—Background

So far, I have placed all the emphasis on the common ground and, as we have seen, there is much we have in common. Indeed, so much in the political, economic and military spheres that we might expect the relationship between our two countries to be entirely happy and untroubled. But it is not. And the reason, in the complex world we inhabit, is surprisingly simple. The reason is the Palestinian problem. Or should I say the Israeli problem?

This is a matter so sensitive in the United States that it is not easy for an Arab to address an American audience on this subject. And yet it is at the root of so many of the problems which beset the Middle East that there is no alternative but to face it.

Everyone here is familiar with how the state of Israel was formed. Zionist agitation throughout the early decades of the 20th century, given renewed impetus by the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Europe in the 1930s and throughout the Second World War, eventually led in 1948 to Ben-Gurion’s declaration of a new state — the state of Israel—thus fulfilling Jewish aspirations for their own homeland.

But what is seen in the West as a truly epic story, as the legitimate aspiration of a people to find a home, was seen in the Arab world as the ruthless and systematic persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians by an immigrant, if not a colonial, power. The land where Israel was founded was not a vacuum waiting to be filled; it was Palestine, a land peopled by Palestinians for centuries. Thus, as one people found, or perhaps more accurately occupied, a home, another lost theirs.

Throughout the period of Jewish agitation for a state in Palestine, the Zionists’ plans were opposed by the Palestinians in particular and the Arab world in general. When the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the late King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, met President Roosevelt on the cruiser USS Quincy in February 1945, President Roosevelt gave a promise — or rather two promises—to the Saudi king:

• He would never to anything which might prove hostile to the Arabs.
• The U.S. government would make no change in its basic policy on Palestine without full and prior consultation with both Jews and Arabs.

Immediately after Roosevelt’s death, President Truman ignored these promises and, perhaps more concerned with popularity at home than justice abroad, worked tirelessly for the formation and recognition of the State of Israel — and thus for the dispossession of the Palestinians. How was it that the firm promise given to a head of state by one president could be immediately violated by the next? This is not common practice in political affairs generally. It is rare indeed in the institutionalized democracy of the United States. While Henry Kissinger was secretary of state, he gave a promise that the United States would not negotiate with the PLO. A number of American presidents have held firm to that promise, despite the fact that refusal to talk to the PLO effectively precluded any progress towards peace in the Middle East.

Whatever the reasons for President Truman’s decision to ignore the undertakings of his predecessor, this much is certain. When the state of Israel was declared, the Arab world felt betrayed. And the seeds of several wars, the sufferings of millions of refugees, and the grim situation we face today were sown.

Well, some say, that is all history. Israel and those who support her hope that, with time, the Palestinian problem will disappear; that the Palestinians will be absorbed by other countries; and that their aspirations for nationhood and for the land of their fathers will somehow disappear. This is an irrational and extremely dangerous notion. The Palestinians believe themselves to have been dispossessed. Those who remain under Israeli rule are deeply resentful. The Intifada, the Palestinian uprising in the Occupied Territories, of recent months, in which dozens of Palestinians, armed only with sticks or stones, have been shot dead by Israeli troops, gives some indication of how deep that resentment runs. And the Palestinian refugees living in camps in other Arab countries will not forget the homes and the land which belonged to them.

Some Israelis and their friends believe that the answer is to take a “tough line” with the Palestinians. But if taking a tough line was going to work, the problem would have been solved long ago to Israel’s satisfaction. The list of “tough” measures is long: the massacres of Palestinians at the time of the formation of the state of Israel (now well-documented); the pursuit of the PLO into Lebanon; the shelling of West Beirut; the massacres of Palestinian refugees in their camps by Christian militiamen, which, at the least, Israel did nothing to prevent; Israel’s routine bombing raids of Palestinian refugee camps; the ruthless suppression of the recent uprising of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories — all these and many other actions could fairly be categorized as “tough.” And yet the problem gets worse.

I know that some in America feel that Israel’s actions have been entirely justified throughout, that the Jewish attachment to the land of Palestine dating from Biblical times and, in particular, the persecution of the Jews by Hitler, in some way entitles them to the land of Palestine and justifies any actions they may take to enforce that claim. The Arab world does not agree, but my primary purpose is not to debate who is right and who is wrong. I am simply trying to explain how the Arab world sees Israel’s conduct, why the problem of the Palestinians will not disappear, and why the issue sours and endangers U.S.-Arab relations.

To the Arabs, it seems (as indeed King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud explained to President Roosevelt) that with a twisted logic, in some way, the Palestinians are being made to expiate the crimes of the Nazis. Because of those Nazi crimes, Israel is somehow excused for whatever action it takes against those whom they have dispossessed. If this is the case, it is time the West acknowledged that the crimes of one society cannot be expiated by allowing the victims of those crimes to perpetrate crimes against another. If all peoples have a right to self-determination, if it is wrong to expel and persecute those who seek basic human rights, then surely the Palestinians have that right, and Israel is wrong to deny it to them.

The Current Situation

What is the situation today? The United States of America has initiated a “peace process.” What progress has been made? There is a major obstacle. Israel will not talk to the PLO, and yet the Palestinians have made it clear that they regard the PLO as their sole legitimate representative. There can be no move towards peace if one side refuses even to talk to the other. And this, it seems to the Arab world, is the intention behind Israel’s intransigence. For them, progress is the lack of progress. The refusal to talk to the Palestinian leadership, thus precluding any effort by the Arab world or the world at large to right the wrongs suffered by the Palestinian people, is misguidedly seen by the Israeli leadership as the way forward.

How is it that Israel can adopt such an intransigent attitude? How can she sustain a posture that is immoral and that, in the final analysis, is impractical — immoral because Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is corrupting the moral standards of Israel; impractical because Israel is an island in an Arab sea? Why is Israel stubborn? Because she knows that America, the most powerful nation on earth, will continue to support her, whatever position she takes. What are the consequences of the failure to find a solution to this problem? They are many.

First, the inability of the parties involved to find even a hope of peace ensures that the region remains in a permanently unstable condition. Spread through the Arab world are groups of refugees with a clear national identity who feel profoundly aggrieved and who long to repossess the homes and the land which were theirs. The magnitude of the injustice they have suffered remains obscure only in the West.

Secondly, the failure to move towards peace leads some into terrorism. Terrorism is, we all agree, inexcusable, but, when there is no hope of finding justice by diplomatic or political means, there are always those who believe the only way to generate pressure is to attract the world’s attention — by whatever means. (South Africa is another classic instance where the denial of human rights has led some to adopt violence.)

Thirdly, the failure of governments to make any progress in the search for peace over many years is a catalyst for fanaticism, which in the Middle East has manifested itself on this occasion as religious fanaticism.

American Policy in the Middle East

Because the Palestinian-Israeli problem is central to politics in the Middle East and because America plays a pivotal role in her support of Israel, it is necessary for us to consider Saudi-American relations in the context of America’s policy towards Israel.

It seems to us that there is a fundamental ambivalence in America’s Middle East policy. America presents herself as an honest broker between Israel and the Arab world (or, more correctly, between Israel and the moderate Arab countries). But America takes as her basic premise that “when the chips are down,” Israel’s interest must take precedence.

When an Arab country asks to buy weapons—even a country like Saudi Arabia, which has shown itself to be tireless in seeking diplomatic solutions to the problems of the region and which is particularly concerned about its own security—America is quite likely to say no, because AIPAC fears the weapons could one day be used against Israel. The refusal of your Congress to supply arms to one of its best customers is puzzling, to say the least. The belief seems to be that the United States of America is the world’s sole supplier of military hardware and that the economic dislocations inherent in the decision not to supply American arms to a good friend are of no consequence whatsoever.

It would seem that the effect of such a decision on the U.S. job market and trade deficit fades into insignificance when compared with the perceived need to pacify an extremely militant and disproportionately influential minority group in America. But when Israel needs the most advanced technology so that she maintains military superiority against all possible foes, real or imagined, America is prepared to give (not sell, but give) her full assistance.

Of course, in terms of arms supplies, America can do as she pleases. But she cannot pretend to be politically impartial. She cannot expect the Arab world to accept her as an “honest broker” when she is so clearly swayed by Israel’s interests.

And what are the consequences of America’s partiality towards Israel? They are entirely predictable. The first and most immediate result is that America’s Arab friends are forced to look elsewhere for arms — and for a less biased view of the Middle East and its problems. The Kingdom’s decision to place a major arms contract with Britain attracted considerable publicity recently. It was clear that Saudi Arabia had first looked to the United States of America for its legitimate defense requirements. Because of the influence of Israel’s friends in Congress, however, the required arms supplies were not available. The Kingdom had no alternative but to look elsewhere.

A second and far more serious consequence of America’s bias towards Israel is that, politically, uncritical support for Israel precludes a fair and just settlement of the Palestinian- Israeli problem. If this view is correct, then why is it that successive American administrations have failed to realize that America alone has the power to persuade Israel to recognize the rights of the Palestinians — and that it is in America’s interest and in the interest of natural justice that the rights of the Palestinians be recognized?

In my view there are two interconnected reasons. First, there is the strength of the Zionist lobby in America, which, as the world knows, wields immense political power and exerts extraordinary political leverage in the States. Secondly, there is the American system of electing a government every four years, which makes the maintenance of a coherent long-term foreign policy, particularly in a region as complex as the Middle East, very difficult to sustain.

These two reasons are interconnected because the frequency of elections ensures that politicians, who are especially vulnerable to pressure from well-organized and powerful lobbies, tend to become particularly sensitive to the views of the Jewish lobby every four years. And, as we all know, finding a solution that is just and fair in the Middle East will demand a strategy which will take many years to implement fully, in the course of which all elected American representatives will have to face their electorate one or more times.

Israel and U.S. Interests

What can be done in order to produce a fairer view of the problem and to “give peace a chance”? The first step might be to ask America to examine where her true interests lie. We can assume that morally the United States of America would like to see peace in the Middle East, a peace based on justice for all parties involved. If that is so, it is time that the rights of the Palestinians were given some serious consideration. But let us, for the moment, leave matters of morality to one side. Where do America’s political and economic interest lie?

The Arab world consists of a total population which approaches 200 million people and a Muslim population of one billion in a region stretching from the Gulf in the east to the Atlantic in the west; from Syria and Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia alone occupies an area roughly the size of Western Europe, and under its land lies a quarter of the West’s oil. The Arab world in general and, in particular, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is a major export market for the United States of America and, as the economies of the region develop, will have the potential to become even more important in this respect.

Is it then wise for America to side with Israel—at the expense of her relations with the Arab world? I know what those who say “Yes” would argue. They would say that Israel is a true and trusted friend of America, that she constitutes a bastion against communism in the region and that, in any case, friendly Arab states like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia must maintain good relations with America “because they have nowhere else to go.”

It is true that Israel has a close relationship with the United States of America, though how much of it is based on trust and how much on expediency is open to debate. Evidence that Israel has spied on its trusted friend (the Pollard case) came perhaps as more of a shock to Americans than it did to anyone else. Indeed recent history is full of Israeli expediency at the expense of American interests. Israel’s theft of weapons-grade uranium from America in 1965 (as asserted by the then-head of the CIA); Israel’s destruction of the USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171 others, which the chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff declared “could not possibly have been a case of mistaken identity”; the harassment in 1983 by Israeli troops of U.S. Marines in Lebanon; the continuing invasions of Lebanon — all undertaken despite U.S. protests; Israel’s military alliance with South Africa, which contravenes current American policy in southern Africa; Israel’s unlawful strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was widely condemned in America; and the excessive, Nazi-like tactics employed by the Israelis against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories on the West Bank and Gaza, which is the subject of alarm throughout America and the civilized world.

The most stunning example of Israeli contempt for American sensibilities is, of course, the unproven attack by Israeli naval forces on the USS Liberty, an unarmed communications ship lying at anchor in the Mediterranean. In that attack on June 3, 1967, 34 American sailors were killed and 171 were wounded in broad daylight with the American flag flying at full mast. The Israeli sailors methodically destroyed the life rafts as they were lowered to the water, thereby leaving the wounded and survivors to fend for themselves in the waters of the Mediterranean.

The second argument presented by the friends of Israel is that she is a bulwark against communism. It is true that Israel is a non-communist country, though it should be noted that the Arab states of the Gulf are even more strongly opposed to communism, by virtue of both creed and ideology, than is Israel.

Finally there is the argument that countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia “have nowhere else to go.” That argument is dangerous. First, it is far from true. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has recently shown that it will, at all costs, maintain its defense capability. Some $68 billion-worth of business which could have been placed with American firms has gone to Britain. As you also know, Saudi Arabia has recently purchased missiles from China. Remember, Saudi Arabia, unlike Israel, pays for its arms, so that is a great deal of lost business for America. Secondly, the argument is an insult to America’s friends in the Arab world and a stimulus to her enemies.

If America abuses her friendship with friendly Arab governments by pursuing a blatantly-pro-Israeli policy in the Middle East, she weakens the position of those governments against their enemies (some of whom are indeed communists), who argue that only by removing American influence from the region will it be possible for the Palestinians to attain even some of their goals.

While America guarantees Israel and while that guarantee appears to be unconditional, Israel, perhaps understandably, will see no need to make any concessions at all. Therefore no progress can be made towards solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem — except on Israel’s terms. No real progress will be made.

“We will not sit down and talk with terrorists,” says Israel. Such a sentiment comes strangely from the Israeli leadership. Let us remember that one man’s terrorism is another man’s liberation struggle. As in the case of Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir, terrorists sometimes grow up to become presidents and ministers of state of independent nations.

While Israel maintains a policy of obstructing all moves towards peace, the preconditions for the continuation of the problems of regional instability, terrorism and religious fanaticism will persist. And the injustice which the Palestinians suffer will continue.

Giving Peace a Chance

What concrete steps can the United States of America take to show that she understands the reality of the Palestinian-Israeli problem? First, she should recognize unequivocally the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland. What grounds are there to deny the Palestinians this basic human right? Secondly, she should acknowledge that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the only body with the authority to speak on behalf of the Palestinians. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. The vast majority of Palestinians see the PLO as their legitimate voice and, whether Israel likes it or not, it is with the PLO that Israel must come to terms if there is ever to be peace in the region.

But the Zionists say that the PLO is a terrorist organization and that, until they disavow violence, Israel will never talk to its representatives. Is this not an absurd position to take? Or rather is it not a position which precludes any possibility of progress towards peace? (It is the same argument that the South African government uses against the ANC.) How can those who see themselves as dispossessed, oppressed and denied democratic rights disavow violence? The forces they face maintain dominance through the continuous exercise of violence; they are well-armed and, as we have seen in recent months, prepared to kill those who demonstrate against them within the Occupied Territories, just as they have pursued and killed many thousands of Palestinians who have fled to other countries.

But, say the Zionists, these Palestinians have opposed or risen up against the government of Israel. This is true. But surely we must accept that if a people are wronged, if their land is occupied and if they cannot get redress in any other way, there is justification for taking to arms.

What about Camp David? Is that not the way to peace? It seems not. As most in the Arab world foresaw at the time, Camp David was simply a means of dividing the Arab world, neutralizing one of the most powerful Arab countries. Although Camp David included a provision for addressing the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians, Israel has done nothing to honor the rather vague commitment she was persuaded to give as the price for throwing the Arab world into confusion.

If there is to be peace, therefore, the United States of America should recognize the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and should accept the PLO as their legitimate voice. In this way, America will show a real understanding of the problem and will be in a position to use its powerful influence to bring the two sides, Israel and the PLO, together in an international conference to start the serious process of finding a way towards peace.

Broad Policy Concerns

Now I will take a brief look at the Middle East on a broader basis. After all, the population of Israel is a mere 4 million, whereas the Arab world constitutes a population of 200 million. There is more to the politics of the Middle East than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

First let us acknowledge the powerful influence that the United States of America exerts in the region. Not only is America the patron and financial mainstay of Israel, but, because of the strategic importance of the region in global terms, she is deeply involved in its politics. Secondly, may I express my concern at the apparent absence of a coherent and consistent long-term American policy on the region. This lacuna in American policy benefits no one and ensures that the “peace process” falters and fails.

One of the dominant powers in the region is Iran, which, under its present regime, is bitterly opposed to the United States of America. Iran has expressed ambitions to export its radical form of Islamic fundamentalism and, inevitably, its anti-American sentiments, to other Arab countries. Such ambitions add a further and serious threat to the stability of the region by attempting to foment insurrection in Arab countries — in particular, those which are considered “moderate” and which have maintained good relations with the United States.

For the last eight years, the political scene in the Middle East has been dominated by the Iraq-Iran war — a war in which Iran attempted, by direct military means, to extend its control over the Islamic world. Iran has been frustrated in this attempt, but that is most unlikely to end Iran’s expansionist aspirations.

At the same time, Iraq’s success in frustrating Iran’s ambitions is having a substantial effect on the political map of the Middle East. With the ending of the Iraq-Iran war, the United States of America should recognize the changing reality of the situation and develop a new political strategy to deal with it. As the political pattern reforms, the United States will see the emergence of a distinct, coherent and powerful grouping of Arab countries which is able to do business, in every sense, with the United States of America. This group consists of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

As the United States of America considers how to proceed in the Middle East, it should take into account that this new grouping offers a unique opportunity to make real progress in the search for a lasting peace in the region. Through its moral authority in the Islamic world and through its own financial power, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia plays a pivotal role in the politics of the region. The Kingdom is eager to use its authority and influence to find just solutions to all the problems which beset the region.

In partnership with the United States of America, there is a chance for real progress — but only if the United States of America recognizes the realities of the situation and is able to formulate a fair and consistent policy. By recognizing the realities of the situation, I mean, in particular, accepting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for self-determination and recognizing the PLO as their official representatives. By formulating a fair and consistent policy, I mean, in particular, acknowledging that it is only America which can persuade Israel to moderate its stance.

If the United States of America were to adopt such an approach, she would undermine the power of those, like the Iranian leaders, who argue that the only path to justice is through rejection of the West and revolution in the Middle East. If the United States of America fails to adopt such an approach, she will be creating the preconditions for future instability and the change of the balance of power in the region.

If the root problem is left unresolved, there is a serious danger that, at some time in the future, there will be another war. The course and the consequences of such a conflict are so horrific to contemplate that it is to be hoped that statesmen in all countries concerned will endeavor to find a way towards peace and will not be deterred by pressure groups and lobbyists whose vision is sometimes so narrow that they harm their own interests as well as endanger the safety of the world.

For there to be any real progress, the United States needs to persuade Israel that Israel’s interests lie in coming to terms with the Arab world, not by negotiating treaties or accords with individual Arab states but by addressing the problem which created the hostility in the first place. It should be clear to all that, in the long run, the Israelis themselves will be safe only if those whom they have wronged are justly treated.

U.S.-Saudi Interests

Where does the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stand? How should the United States of America see the Kingdom? We think our record is our most eloquent spokesman. The Kingdom has been tireless in its diplomatic efforts to find just solutions to Middle East problems. In the Gulf, between Iraq and Iran, and in the Palestinian-Israeli problem, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always been ready to take a positive and constructive approach. And, in all its diplomatic initiatives, its purpose has been clear: to find peace with justice.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has never attacked others, has never sought to extend its borders. As guardian of the Holy Places of Islam, it has done all in its power to facilitate the great pilgrimage, the Hajj, for all who come from around the world to perform their devotions. Blessed with the wealth that came from oil, it has consistently contributed massive funds to less fortunate countries in the Arab world, in the Islamic world and in the world at large. Its Five-Year Plans demonstrate its commitment to the development of its land for the benefit of its people. In education, housing and health, there has probably never been, in the history of mankind, so great an investment in so short a time.

Finally, there is no doubt that it is in the interest of the United States to maintain good and close relations with the power that has proved over a long period of time its international position, its credibility, its rational principles and its direction. It has also proved during its political history that it is a power that loves peace, seeks justice, supports freedom wherever it is sought, and abides by international legality and works towards its nation’s progress and comfort. In like manner, it insists on being one of the first nations that lends its aid in international cooperation both in the moral and humane fields.

Consequently, one could say that any serious and sincere effort exerted by the United States for the sake of protecting and maintaining this relation is an effort exerted in its own interest before any other interest, as long as it is consonant with America’s principles and goals and serves the causes of freedom and peace in the world. The most direct way to fulfill this aim is to work toward solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not only for the sake of the Palestinian people, who have been severely and unjustly wronged before the eyes of the United States, the leader of freedom in the world, but also for the sake of all those who live in the Middle East region and for the world at large.