Israeli Newspapers Say: King Saud Is the Leader of the Idea of Eliminating Israel!!
The Jewish Observer magazine, which represents the views of international Zionism, published an additional report about King Saud and Saudi Arabia. It stated that it considers King Saud the leader of the sentiment of hatred toward Israel, and the foremost figure who instills in the hearts of all Arabs the desire to annihilate Israel. The Jewish Observer then attacked the system of government in the Kingdom in a long report filled with lies, fabrications, and distortions — as is the case with everything in Israel.
Israel’s Enemy
On the same day this report appeared in the Jewish Observer, the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that reflects the views of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs — wrote:
“Israel is confident that Turkey is working to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East. Israel does not oppose the Turkish–Iraqi Pact and desires good relations with the Arabs. Therefore, it views Ankara’s efforts to strengthen its ties with the Arab world with satisfaction.”
The paper added that Israel considers King Saud the number‑one enemy of Zionism, just as it considers the Turks the number‑one enemy of the Arabs. Thus, it attempted to smear King Saud while applauding Turkey’s success in pulling Iraq into the camp of states friendly — not hostile — to Israel.
Israel’s Fears
This is the plain truth: Israel’s greatest fear is that the Arabs and Muslims, under the leadership of King Saud, might launch a holy war against it — a war that would mean its end. Israel fully understands the danger posed by the alliance between King Saud and the foremost revolutionary, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and by their joint efforts to unify the Arab ranks. These efforts succeeded in consolidating the Arab League states and tightening the noose around Israel.
Israel tried to escape this Arab encirclement by suggesting in its newspapers that Israel is the only power in the Middle East that Egypt can rely on, that their interests are shared, and that the Arabs are unreliable — and that Israel is the only stable state in the region. When these attempts failed, its newspapers shifted to a new narrative: that King Saud opposes any idea that would strengthen Iraq out of fear for his throne, and that this is why he allied with Gamal Abdel Nasser.
“Erasing Israel”
Anyone can understand from these fabrications that Israel seeks to undermine both leaders and cast doubt on their patriotism, hoping to break apart the Arab League, which has imposed a tight siege on it. Zionism calculates a thousand times the danger posed by the Egyptian–Saudi axis, even though it tries to portray the Saudi soldier as primitive.
In one issue last October, the Jewish Observer published a photo of King Saud reviewing a unit of his soldiers, captioned: “Erasing Israel.”
The same issue published the King’s statements to Mr. Alfred Lilienthal, representative of the American Jewish Council opposed to Zionism, in which His Majesty said that the catastrophe of Palestine was created by international Zionism with the support and influence of British and American policy. He demanded that Israel comply with UN resolutions and halt immigration, warning that if Zionist aggression continued, the Arabs would have no choice but to defend their lives and lands by every means available.
“Millions of Arabs and Muslims long to sacrifice themselves to protect Al‑Aqsa Mosque and the holy places from the Zionists.
Palestine will return to the Arabs sooner or later, and the nations that care about peace and stability in the Middle East must understand this truth.”
The Oil Tanker Agreement
When the Saudi oil‑tanker agreement was concluded, world Zionism erupted in anger because one of its clauses stipulated that Jews must not benefit from it directly or indirectly, and that the company must not deal with Israel.
The New York Times wrote that American and British oil companies strongly opposed the agreement and objected to some of its clauses — meaning those related to Israel. The paper explained that the agreement would increase Saudi Arabia’s income by $50 million annually as a tax on transported oil. This would enable King Saud to take on new financial commitments to the Arabs, support them in their struggle against Israel, and strengthen Saudi Arabia’s support for Egypt in its opposition to the Turkish–Pakistani Pact. Saudi Arabia had promised to integrate its wealth with Egypt and unify their military efforts, and had promised Jordan financial assistance to strengthen its army and fund its National Guard, which protects the Jordanian–Israeli border.
The King and Islamic Unity
Israel sought to crown its campaign against King Saud. In its recently published book The State of Israel in 1954, which describes the activities of the occupying state during that year, it devoted a chapter to its relations with Arab states. It wrote explicitly about its number‑one enemy:
“King Saud abandoned his father’s more moderate policy and became one of the strongest advocates of Islamic unity — the policy championed by Zafarullah Khan — and one of the strongest supporters of Egypt’s neutralist stance in its opposition to the Turkish–Iraqi Pact.”
Turkey and Israel
We do not find it strange that Israel publishes such things about Arab states in general and King Saud in particular. What is surprising is the stance of the Turkish press toward the Arab states, despite Turkey’s claim that it seeks their friendship.
On the day the Turkish–Iraqi agreement was announced (12 January 1955), the newspaper Halkçı wrote:
“There is no justification for Israel’s fears or suspicions regarding Turkey’s policy toward the Arab states. As Israel’s friend, Turkey will never conclude any agreement with one or more states that harms this friendship. Turkey’s efforts to win Arab friendship do not mean hostility toward Israel. Any rapprochement between Turkey and the Arab states should be welcomed by Israel, especially at this time when Turkey is working to affirm its role in the Middle East. Israel must be fully reassured about our policies, for Turkey cannot sacrifice Israel in its foreign policy.”
Turkish newspapers continued this tone from the announcement of the pact until now. If we add to these Turkish comments the American press — especially the pro‑Israel papers — we can form a clear picture of the true nature of the Turkish–Iraqi Pact.
A Blow to the Arab League
The Washington Post, a mouthpiece of Israel in America, declared that the Turkish–Iraqi Pact was a blow to the heart of the Arab League, which was collapsing and whose only remaining justification was its hostility to Zionism.
The Post Star affirmed that Turkey and Israel are reliable allies: Turkey demonstrated its support for American policy by trying to draw Arab states into the Western bloc and succeeded in persuading Iraq to sign a defense treaty with it.
Resisting Egypt’s Influence
The New York Times admitted that the West, through Turkey — a NATO member — worked to counter Egypt’s influence in maintaining the Arab League’s neutrality, and that Turkey’s great success appeared in Iraq’s agreement to sign the pact.
The Christian Science Monitor claimed that Israel doubted Turkey’s ability to mediate between Israel and the Arab states.
Even the Times of London, known for its moderation, could not remain silent about Israel’s claims that the pact was directed against it. It wrote:
“If Israel examined the pact carefully, it would be convinced that it poses no danger to it, for it is not directed against Israel at all.”
The Times stopped short of saying openly that the pact was the only means to break the unity of the Arab states against Israel by pulling them one by one into the pact, thereby undermining Egypt’s efforts to unify the Arabs — because Arab unity means the end of colonialism, which the West does not want.
A Settlement Between Arabs and Israel
The Gazette de Lausanne supported the Times and was even more explicit, stating that the Turkish–Iraqi Pact was intended to pave the way for settling outstanding issues between the Arab states and Israel. Turkey’s good relations with Israel would enable it to mediate and calm tensions — a significant advantage. Therefore, Israel’s fears regarding the pact were unfounded.
Peace Through Turkey
All this means that when the West despaired of the Arab states’ refusal to make peace with Israel until it implemented UN resolutions, it worked through its agent, Turkey, to break Arab unity so that Israel could find an escape from the iron ring surrounding it. Turkey seized this golden opportunity, dreaming of restoring its Ottoman Empire and believing itself more deserving than France of the title “Great Power,” which entitles its holder to colonies and a vast empire.
Russia and the East
Reports from the British, American, and Turkish foreign ministries — and from Western military commanders — indicate that Turkey is confident that Russia will not launch a direct military attack on the Middle East, and that if it does anything, it will be limited to stirring internal unrest.
Bargaining
If this is the case, why the rush by Turkey and Iraq to conclude the pact? Unless Washington promised them that if they succeeded in stabilizing Israel’s position and securing Arab recognition of it, the United States would reward them with certain privileges — not yet disclosed.
This view is supported by the New York Times, which reported that America asked Britain to approve the creation of a military bloc in the Middle East in exchange for Washington’s approval to increase Britain’s share of the weapons it sells to the region. Thus, the matter is nothing more than bargaining — with Arabs bought and sold like livestock.
Source: Sarkhat Al‑Arab
May 1955 – Issue No. 5