Doc's Talk: Leveraging the Clintons

Friday, December 19, 2008

Leveraging the Clintons

Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/19/2008

Ever since leaving office, Bill Clinton has adamantly refused to reveal the donors to his philanthropic organization, the William J. Clinton Foundation. This week’s disclosure of more than 200,000 donors to the foundation – part of a deal with President-elect Barack Obama to allay concerns about possible conflicts of interest should Hillary Clinton be confirmed as secretary of state – suggests a reason for the secrecy. Among those who’ve made a total of $492 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation are several troubling figures and governments – including supporters of the terrorist group Hezbollah, and the rulers of Saudi Arabia – whose identities the former president would have preferred to keep private. . Hezbollah’s Ally
Notable on the disclosure list is that the foundation has received between $1 and $5 million from entrepreneur, politician and philanthropist Issam Fares, a former deputy primer minister Lebanon. In the United States, Fares is best known as the CEO of the Wedge Foundation, a Houston-based investment firm. In his native Lebanon, however, Fares may be better known as an outspoken supporter of Hezbollah and an apologist for the Syrian dictatorship’s previous military occupation of his country. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, for instance, Fares insisted that “it is a mistake to make a comparison between the al-Qaeda network” and Hezbollah. The latter was actually a “resistance party fighting the Israeli occupation,” Fares informed Agence France-Presse, explaining that “Hezbollah did not carry out any resistance operation against American interests in Lebanon or abroad and did not target civilians in its resistance activities as happened on Sept. 11 at the World Trade Center.” In fact, Hezbollah carried out the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing a total of 241 American Marines, Navy, and Army personnel.

Nor was this a rare unguarded moment for the Lebanese politician. During a September 2004 address to the United Nations, Fares voiced support for Hezbollah on an international stage, describing the terror group as a “national resistance movement.” “It is…the policy of Lebanon to support the National Resistance Movement which has played an important role in forcing Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon,” Fares said. In the same speech, Fares condemned “Israeli forces” for their presence on the Lebanon’s border with the Golan Heights, while managing to excuse Syria’s far more brutal occupation of Lebanon. “There are Syrian forces in Lebanon,” Fares acknowledged. But he insisted that “these forces are on our territory upon the request of the Lebanese government” and that “Lebanon considers the presence of these troops dependent on security conditions in the region.” Fares’s stint as deputy prime minister ended the following year, with the fall of the pro-Syrian government of Prime Minister Omar Karami; Syria’s military occupation ended shortly thereafter. Fares’s services to the Syrian regime have not gone unnoticed. He has received the Syrian decoration of St. Ephrem, promoting him to the honorary rank of commander.

Clinton’s Kingdom Come
One of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Disclosure forms indicate that of all government donors, the Saudi regime was the most generous, contributing between $10 and $25 million to the president’s foundation. This financial relationship has grown despite the fact that the home of the 9/11 hijackers remains the world’s leading financier of terrorism, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee this April, Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey observed that “Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world.” Besides topping the list of terror-sponsoring states, Saudi Arabia continues to rank at the bottom by almost every measure of political freedom. A 2008 Freedom House survey placed Saudi Arabia among the least free county’s in the world, just a notch above Chinese-occupied Tibet and the war-torn Russian puppet state of Chechnya. The key Clinton foundation contributor also has the dubious distinction of being one of only seven countries in the world that punishes homosexuality by death.

Friends in Low Places
Direct contributions are just one source of financing that the foundation draws from the Saudi government. The foundation has also received between $1 and $5 million from the pro-Saudi advocacy group, Friends of Saudi Arabia (FSA). Launched in 2005 and supported by the Saudi royal family, the group acts as a kind of public relations agency, protesting what it considers the country’s unfair portrayal in the U.S. and otherwise working to “dispel misconceptions” about the kingdom. Among these supposed “misconceptions” is Saudi Arabia’s association with terrorism. Prior the release of the 2007 film “The Kingdom,” for example, FSA executive director Michael Saba wrote a letter to the chairman of Universal Studios expressing his concern “that the movie might present negative stereotypes about the people of Saudi Arabia.” Never mind that the film was loosely based on the very real May 2003 terrorist bombings of an American compound in Riyadh that killed 34 and injured over 200. Not content to criticize a still-unreleased film, Saba noted that the FSA “would like to review the script and see an advanced viewing of the movie.” (In his zeal, Saba had apparently confused the U.S. for Saudi Arabia, whose Islamist censors let no film, song, or article circulate without alteration.)

Given his Saudi sponsors, it comes as no surprise that Saba himself is an anti-Israel zealot and conspiracy theorist. His 1984 book, The Armageddon Network, alleges widespread Israeli espionage at the highest level of the U.S. government, complete with a Justice Department cover-up. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the book has found its most devoted readership in the Islamic world. Today, Saba continues to see a hidden Israeli hand in international affairs. Rehearsing a favorite theme in 2004, he claimed – on the basis of no evidence whatsoever – that Israeli interrogators played a role in the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

Dubai-ous Donors
In the company of fellow Gulf States Oman, Kuwait and Qatar, the United Arab Emirates is another rich source of the Clinton Foundation’s funds. Thus the president’s group has received between $1 and $5 million from the Dubai Foundation. Headed by Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the foundation’s goals include improving education and creating jobs in the Middle East. But Sheikh Maktoum’s interests frequently run in a very different direction. In the past, the Sheikh has reportedly donated at least 1 million United Arab Emirate (UAE) dirhams (approximately $270,000 on the current exchange rate) to “the families of the Palestinian martyrs” – that is, Palestinian terrorists killed in action. More recently, in November of 2006, the sheikh sponsored a concert by Lebanese songstress Julia Bourtos in honor of “Lebanese Martyrs” in Hezbollah.

Sheikh Zayed is just one of the Clinton Foundation’s prominent supporters in Dubai. The foundation has also received between $1 and $5 million from the Zayed family, the UAE’s Abu Dhabi-based royal family. That is not, however, the family’s most famous philanthropic outlet – a description more fitting for the now-defunct Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up. Founded in 1999 and funded by Abu Dhabi’s later ruler, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the center was intended to serve as a kind of “think-tank” for the Arab world. Instead, the center became a notorious platform for anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and supporters of terrorism. Typical of the center’s activities was an October 11, 2001, report titled “The Zionist Movement and Its Animosity to Jews” that likened Zionism to Nazism. Ironically, among the last speakers hosted by the Zayed Center prior to its August 2003 closure was anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist Michael Collins Piper, who took advantage of the occasion to posit a Jewish conspiracy behind everything from Watergate to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Unanswered Questions
President Clinton would no doubt reject the extreme views of such donors. But the irony of this week’s disclosure is that it raises as many questions as it answers. For instance, given his foundation’s declared mission to promote “racial, ethnic, and religious reconciliation,” how can he justify his willing association with governments that routinely abuse human rights and fuel sectarian violence? Further, in light of the Clinton foundation’s dependency on such donors, what assurances will Hillary Clinton provide that her husband’s philanthropic interests will not stand in the way of the nation’s diplomatic priorities?

At least when it comes to the second question, critics have a ready answer. Assuming she’s confirmed, the former first lady should begin her tenure at the State Department by taking a tough stand against some of the Clinton’s foundation more prominent funders. At that point, perhaps, the millions in Saudi donations really will have done some good.
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. His e-mail is jlaksin [@] gmail.com.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk