FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Recently I accused Bill Clinton of being stupid (or at least ignorant). One of the comments on that post corrected me: not stupid, the writer said. Corrupt.

Could this be true? I decided to look for the money.

Washington Post, December 2007:

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.

Hmm, that’s a start.

Clinton has a foundation, which supports his library plus many charitable operations worldwide. In 2008, the Obama administration required the foundation to release its donor records as a condition of Hilary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of state. It turns out that Bill’s foundation had received contributions totaling at least $492 million from various sources, including these:

Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation…

Norway gave $5 million to $10 million. Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Oman gave $1 million to $5 million each.

Of course these are only the official contributions. Individuals can and did give more. So we are up to $25 million in Saudi money, plus millions more from, shall we say, non-Zionist sources. Here are just a few of the private donors:

• Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid: $1 – $5 million.
• Friends of Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Foundation: $1 – $5 million.
• U.S. Islamic World Conference: $250,000 to $500,000.
• No. 97 on the Forbes billionaire list, Ethiopian-Saudi business tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi.

Now I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with what the Clinton Foundation does with its money. It funds various good causes like fighting AIDS, etc. Nor am I saying that all the donors were Arabs: one big donor is the apolitical Bill Gates, as well as prominent Jews like TV producer and activist Haim Saban. But the huge sums from Saudi and Arab sources — whose charity usually is limited to funding mosques and friendly academic enterprises (more on this later) are striking.

Here’s something else. The Saudi government made large contributions in 2007 and 2008, but not in 2009. In April of this year, Clinton paid an unpublicized two-day visit to the Saudi King. What do you think they talked about?

Could Clinton’s speech in Egypt be part of a quid pro quo?

I’ve just finished reading Mitchell Bard’s new book, The Arab Lobby. Bard explains that the lobby has basically three components: homegrown Arab-American groups, former government officials and oil-company executives of the Arabist persuasion, and Saudi Arabia and its agents. The Saudis are by far the most important and effective of the three (although of course there are connections between them).

Bard exhaustively documents how huge amounts of Saudi money flow, particularly to universities, departments of Middle East Studies, mosques and Islamic groups, even K-12 education and textbooks.

Like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton has apparently decided to tap into this immense source of funds. I’m sure he thinks that it’s a great deal — just preach their line a little and get millions to fight disease and poverty.

But you don’t make a bargain with the Devil and expect to wriggle out of it with your soul intact.

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Saudi Arabia, Clinton Foundation

What could possibly go wrong?

Some things just make me tired. After everything that’s happened, we are still hearing this kind of crap from supposedly intelligent, informed (and important) people:

Former US president Bill Clinton said Tuesday that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would take away much of the motivation for terrorism around the world.

He described the long-running conflict as the key problem in the region and said resolving it would have a knock on effect [sic] that could result in Syria ending its support for the Lebanese militant group Hizbullah and Iran turning back its controversial nuclear program.

“It will take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away,” he told an audience of Egyptian businessmen from the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. “It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.”

Does he — can he — believe that the Iranian nuclear program is in any way related to the situation of the Palestinian Arabs? Can he have missed the clear intention of the Iranian regime to control the region and its oil resources, and by the way, to destabilize the regime of Mubarak or his successor in Egypt?

Does he think that Syrian ambitions in Lebanon have anything to do with the Palestinians?

Does he think that the Palestinian issue motivates al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to banish Western influence from the Mideast and replace conservative regimes with radical Islamist ones?

Not to mention that ‘peace’ according to the usual formula is wholly unobtainable! Check out this list of 21 elephants in the room that prevent it.

But that’s not all. On another topic,

Weighing in on the controversy surrounding an Islamic Center being built in New York two blocks from the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton suggested dedicating the proposed building to the 60 Muslim victims of the attacks.

“I think the decision to dedicate this center to the memory of those who lost their lives on that day would send a set of messages that would if not make this crisis go away, would dramatically reduce it,” he said.

The ‘crisis’ is that a majority of New Yorkers (and of Americans) think that the center should not be built in that location, either out of respect for the feelings of the families of the victims (all the victims) or because they have a suspicion that the center is intended to be — and will be perceived as — a triumphalist monument to the defeat of the US by radical Islam. It’s hardly likely that dedicating it to the Muslim victims of the attack would defuse these issues.

Possibly the AP report is incorrect and Clinton meant to suggest dedicating it to all the victims. Even so, the fact that it is a Muslim structure built on the scene of a successful attack in the name of Islam remains. There is one simple way to “make the crisis go away,” and that is to move the proposed structure by a few blocks. Of course, the fact that the promoters won’t agree to do this is telling.

I suppose that what this proves is that if you are a political celebrity like Bill Clinton, you can’t just tell every audience what you think they want to hear. Someone will report it and then, in the wider world, you’ll look like an idiot.

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Israeli-Arab conflict, Ground Zero mosque

Geert Wilders

Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders goes on trial today in the Netherlands, for ‘hate speech’:

Prosecutors say Wilders has incited hate against Muslims, pointing to a litany of quotes and remarks he has made in recent years. In one opinion piece he wrote “I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate,” adding “I’ve had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book..”

The flamboyant, bleach-blond politician also has called for taxing clothing commonly worn by Muslims, such as headscarves — or “head rags,” as he once called them — because they “pollute” the Dutch landscape.

He may be best known for the 2008 short film “Fitna,” which offended Muslims around the world by juxtaposing Quranic verses with images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

The case is highly charged politically. Wilders’ opponents accuse him of racism and right-wing extremism, while Wilders claims that the growth of Islam in the Netherlands is analogous to the rise of Nazism in Germany.

Such a criminal charge could not be brought in the US, where any speech that is not direct incitement to violence or otherwise physically dangerous, no matter how obnoxious, is permitted.

Nevertheless, as I’ve written, there are informal limitations on legally permitted expression in the US. When a Florida man announced that he would burn Qurans in public, enormous pressure was brought on him to persuade him against carrying out his threat.

More commonly, explicit expression of racial, ethnic or (to a slightly lesser extent) religious prejudice is considered sufficiently offensive as to mark the speaker as a kind of moral defective, who may be treated with extreme disrespect and whose views may be ignored. More than one politician or celebrity has had his or her career derailed by public remarks that were considered racist, antisemitic, etc.

Interestingly, it seems that one of the criteria used in the Netherlands to determine whether speech constitutes a formal crime is also relevant here where the ‘crime’ is informal:

Prosecutors were initially reluctant to bring Wilders’ case to court, saying his remarks appeared directed toward Islam as an ideology rather than intended to insult Muslims as a group.

In other words, it is permissible to criticize ideology, but not to insult a group. I think this is a poor way of putting it. Should we distinguish between political and religious ideologies? And who determines what is insulting? Some groups are notoriously sensitive.

I would say this: it is permissible to criticize an ideology of any kind — political or religious — when the behavior that follows, or would follow, from putting the ideology into practice is unacceptable.

For example, it’s legitimate to criticize Marxism by pointing to the totalitarian behavior of Marxists when they have achieved power. It’s not legitimate to criticize Catholics for believing in transubstantiation (the belief that the substance of a communion wafer is identical to the body of Christ) because there is no harmful behavior that results from this belief.

Traditional antisemitism gains force by including conspiracy theories, as in the Protocols of the elders of Zion. Of course, real historical research effectively refutes these theories, which has gone a long way in discrediting antisemitism in the West (where people pay attention to such things).

So in regard to criticizing Islam, the question is this: are there legitimate reasons to think that the behavior that can result from Islamic ideology might be undesirable?

I think we have lots of evidence to support this: the Quran itself, statements of Islamic authorities in regard to their expansionist intentions, and the actions of their followers in the name of Islam, both historically and in recent times.

A distinction is often drawn between ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘radical Islamism’, in which the latter is defined as an ideology which aggressively tries to impose Islamic law on as wide an area as possible, either by force or by political action. Wilders rejects such a distinction.

Wilders argues that the Quran, the ultimate touchstone for Islamic belief, explicitly calls for Islam to dominate, and classifies those who do not accept every word of it as apostates. ‘Moderation’ is therefore un-Islamic. He quotes important Muslims — like Turkish PM ErdoÄŸan — who also reject the distinction, saying “Islam is Islam.”

I will add that some purported moderates — like Feisal Abdul Rauf, who Trudy Rubin called “a proud American and a moderate Muslim” — nevertheless cannot bring themselves to condemn their more operationally oriented brothers. This implies that the underlying ideology is the same, even if there is a disagreement on tactics.

Islam is an ideology with consequences. Wilders ought not to be convicted — and critics of Islam in America ought to be allowed to speak and be taken seriously.

Technorati Tags: Islam, Geert Wilders, freedom of expression

Here is a poster by the artistic Elder of Ziyon. Is he being fair to Mr. Abbas?

Elder of Zion apartheid poster

I conducted a Socratic thought-interview to find out. Everything Mahmoud Abbas says below reflects a position he has taken recently.

FresnoZionism: Hello, Dr. Abbas. Thank you for agreeing to this fictitious interview.

Mahmoud Abbas: You’re welcome. Anything to advance the cause of peace.

FZ: Mr. Abbas, why won’t you allow Israelis to live in ‘Palestine’?

MA: Obviously because Palestine is the nation-state of the Palestinian People. That means that only Palestinians can live there.

FZ: So is Israel the nation-state of the Jewish People?

MA: No, there is no Jewish people, only a Jewish religion.

FZ: But if there were a state belonging to the Jewish People, then Palestinians couldn’t live there?

MA: There can’t be, because there isn’t a Jewish people.

FZ: But Israel today considers itself a Jewish state. And yet it allows Arabs to live there, and even vote…

MA: It’s not my job to say what Israel is. But those Arabs that you mention are Palestinians, and of course they can live there. It’s their land.

FZ: So what will happen if there is peace?

MA: The Israelis living in Palestine will have to leave, for one thing.

FZ: What if there is an Arab citizen of Israel living in Ramallah, for example. He’s an Israeli. Will he have to leave too?

MA: No, of course not. He is an Arab Palestinian.

FZ: So what you really meant to say in the quotation on the poster is that Jews will not be allowed to live in Palestine?

MA: You said it, not me.

FZ: What else will happen if there is peace?

MA: All the Palestinians in the world will have the right to return to their homes, in Haifa, Acco, Yafo, wherever.

FZ: Even if they never set foot in those places?

MA: Of course. If they are a member of the Palestinian People, they have a right to live in Palestine.

FZ: What makes them members of a people, if they’ve never lived in Palestine?

MA: It’s enough to have a Palestinian father.

FZ: So why isn’t someone with a Jewish mother a member of the Jewish people?

MA: I told you: there isn’t a Jewish people, only a religion.

FZ: When did the Palestinian people first come to Palestine?

MA: They’ve always been there.

FZ: What about the Egyptians that moved to the region in the 1830’s? Or the Arabs that immigrated during the Mandate period, because of the improved economy created by the Zionists? Or the Syrian Arabs who came from the Hauran region during the drought of 1932-34?

MA: If they lived in Palestine and were Arabs, then they are Palestinians.

FZ: Hmm… if a dog is yours and the dog is a mother, is it your mother? And are your brothers puppies?

MA: What?

FZ: Never mind, it’s an in-joke for philosophy students (quiz: in what dialogue of Plato is this found?). So can Jews be Palestinians?

MA: Of course not!

FZ: But during the mandate period and before, Jews living here were called ‘Palestinians’. And nobody talked about a Palestinian People until about 1967. Before that, they were Palestinian Arabs, just like the Palestinian Jews.

MA: Only Arabs are Palestinians. Jews are European colonialists squatting on Arab land.

FZ: But about half the Jews in Israel didn’t come from Europe. They were kicked out of Arab countries. Take the Syrian Jews, for example…

MA: Well, they are colonialists, too. If they’re Jews, that is.

FZ: So Syrian Arabs can be Palestinians and a member of a people, but Syrian Jews cannot?

MA: Jews aren’t people…er, I mean, Jews aren’t a people.

FZ: Speaking of refugees, there were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than there were Arab refugees from the War of Independence. Shouldn’t they get compensation?

MA: It wasn’t a war of independence, it was a nakba. The Jewish refugees mostly went to the Zionist entity. The Arab refugees still live in horrible camps.

FZ: And why is that? OK, never mind. Let’s get back on track. When there is peace, the Jewish settlers will have to leave ‘Palestine’. What about the Arab settlers in Israel, like those in the settlement of Umm-El-Faham? Will they have to leave?

MA: No, of course not. They are Palestinians and have the right to live anywhere in Palestine, even in the Zionist entity.

FZ: So, we have ‘Palestine’ where there are no Jews allowed, and Israel where both Jews and Arabs can live. But Israel will not be a Jewish state, because there isn’t a Jewish people. Anyway, all 4-5 million Arabs who claim refugee status will have a right to ‘return to their homes’ in Israel, giving it an Arab majority. Isn’t that a little, er, unfair?

MA: Unfair? Of course not! It’s a two-state solution.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Mahmoud Abbas, Socrates, Plato