It's not quite the way you state it. The principal problem is one of
vocabulary. When Palestinians say "martyr", they mean a suicide-bomber.
When the Saudis use "martyr", they mean anyone who was killed by Israelis,
including people killed by accident. The Saudi government stated--and the
US gov't accepted--that distinction. The USG also had no criticism of how
that money was distributed. Certain sectors of the media and blogworld
don't.

I was in the US Embassy in Riyadh when this happened and am very aware of
this being a media flap, not a real issue.

On Saudi donations toward tsunami relief, while the government's direct
contribution so far is $30, a Saudi telethon raised some $80+ million. The
Jeddah-based Islamic Development Bank--of which Saudi Arabia is a major
contributor--pledged $500 million.

Quibbling over vocabulary or the use of the word "martyr" begs the issue and I am not one to give any quarter to, or excuses for, terrorists -  and those who fund them. But aside from that issue, John has a recent article on the Saudis' tsunami-aid efforts which indicates that the Saudis are doing much more than has been reported on in the MSM. However, John brings up a point of interest to himself that anti-terrorism funding efforts are complicating the ability of citizens of the Gulf States to donate to charitable organizations: concern about the legitimacy of some charitable bodies has lead to reduced giving across the board.

I think what John fails to recognize is the Saudis' contribution to the need for anti-terrorism funding controls. From reading comments from readers on his site and then his own comments posted in response to those of his readers, I have yet to see John take an other than pro-Saudi position on anything. I know that John will read this and I have said as much in my emails to him, but I question his neutrality and/or his objectivity in matters concerning the Saudi government and Arabs in general. This is not directed at his integrity but more so his occupation. I am willing to bet an entire weeks worth of coffee at the best coffee house around that I will certainly hear more from John on this matter!

Oh ye of little faith!

Perhaps you should read my blog a little more closely. I certainly do criticize Saudi Arabia, from its government, to its culture, to its loss of control over a religious message.

My point has never been to be an apologist for Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government has an advertising/PR budget for that. I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do--though I may start taking ads.

I write what I write because I believe US-Saudi relations are important, too important to be scuttled by ill-informed complaints. I don't consider those who complain to have mala fides, generally, but believe they often lack the context through which to understand what's actually happening.

I base my writing on 25 years experience mostly in the Muslm world, including a couple of tours in Saudi Arabia (81-83, 01-03). I think that gives me an informed perspective that those who have never been to the KSA lack.

Have I "gone native"? I don't think so. I've leavened my tours with assignments in the UK, India, and of course Washington. I'm well aware that the Middle East, radical Islam, and intolerance have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to both terrorism and the background that leads to terrorism.

I'm also not a "State Dept. weenie", though State did get my prior employer--the US Information Agency--in a hostile takeover. USIA's mission has always been the whole truth, good and bad, not sugar-coated diplomacy.

My days of direct government-to-government action are mostly gone now, but I feel the personal need to not let an important relationship get trashed for the wrong reasons. There may indeed by right reasons to abandon the relationshp, but I don't see them.

Right now, Saudi Arabia is fighting for the definition of its soul. Major reforms are taking place, from women's rights to participatory democracy; from a bloody war against terror on its streets to a behind the scenes war on terrorist financing. Reading the US media, you don't see that. What you see instead is a lot of agenda-driven axe-grinding written by people who have never been to Saudi, don't speak Arabic, maybe talk to a few Saudi exiles, and figure they can make a buck by telling an audience a simple story with clearly delineated "good guys" and "bad guys".

This isn't to dive into the pool of cultural or moral relativism. It's a realistic recognition that you can't fix a problem if you don't know what that problem really is. More, you can make the problem harder to solve if you're not looking in the right places.

Sorry about the coffee! Provide an snail-mail address and I'll send along a jar of Nescafe.

"This isn't to dive into the pool of cultural or moral relativism. It's a realistic recognition that you can't fix a problem if you don't know what that problem really is. More, you can make the problem harder to solve if you're not looking in the right places"

John, based on your knowledge of the area, what is the cause of the problem in the US/Saudi relationship?