Saturday 30th of November 2024

a semite billionaire anti-semitism.....

“Independent media” are sweeping developing countries; money from NATO governments and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations are flooding the public sphere. 

In the past, the U.S. government used to subsidize traditional newspapers in the Arab world: those that were the most reactionary and right-wing such as Al-Hayat, An-Nahar and Al-`Amal (the last one is the mouthpiece of the Phalanges Party) received the bulk of the funding.  

 

By As`ad AbuKhalil
Special to Consortium News

 

Their mission was to bash progress, downplay the Palestinian question and to go after the foes of U.S. and Israel, i.e. the Palestinian resistance, the Arab left and most importantly and significantly, the Arab nationalist leader Gamal Abdul-Nasser. 

In that regard, Gulf regimes and Western powers funded the same outlets. Even when liberals or socialists or Democrats were in power in Western countries, the support for reactionary forces persisted. 

U.S. and NATO governments find it rather cheap to launch internet-based media in developing countries.  They all look the same and adopt the same message: a liberal social agenda accompanied by U.S. and Israeli military priorities and agendas.  

You see it around the world, with civic groups engaged in the same mission benefiting from Western government funding and from private reactionary and liberal sources.

Soros (through his Open Society Foundations) has become ever present in the Arab world.  But one is not able to talk about the billionaire (in the West and in the East) without having to explain his thrust and to exonerate him or herself from the ready charge of anti-Semitism.

That is a convenient method of intimidation — in line with how Israel and its supporters have succeeded, largely, in intimidating critics of Israel. 

That success was manifested in the adoption by the U.S. State Department of the Zionist definition of anti-Semitism, by which criticism of Israel can be easily equated with anti-Semitism in terms of “proportion” of the criticisms and the “intensity.” 

 

Real Antisemitism

There are of course right-wing reactionary forces in the West who can’t talk or refer to a person who is Jewish (or Jewish-born) without relating whatever complaints they have about him or her to his or her Jewishness.  That is a clear symptom of anti-Semitism. 

And the association of evil plots with Jewish money is as old as anti-Semitism itself.  So, there are people who do attack Soros from an anti-Semitic point of view (or who infuse their attacks on Soros with their anti-Semitism), just as there are people who attack Israel from anti-Semitic perspectives.

But that does not make all attacks, no matter how strong or vicious, to be anti-Semitic (whether against Soros or against Israel).  

Attacks on Muslim bankers or politicians or clerics don’t automatically imply motives of Islamophobia (granted that associating Jewry with banking is a classic anti-Semitic trope just as associating Muslims with fanatic clerics is an Islamophobic trope). 

Some who attack Soros are indeed anti-Semitic, just as there are some who attack Soros from a purely political or economic perspectives (he has been a champion of unbridled capitalism and he refrained from doing business in Israel during the time when he accused the country of socialist excesses).  

There are rightwing writers in the U.S. who accuse Soros of being a self-hating Jewish person because his family used a Christian identity during the Nazi years in Hungary.  This charge is unfair because Soros was a boy at the time; stories that he assisted the Nazi regime can’t be taken seriously. 

So reactionary forces in the West have attacked Soros for his Jewishness (or his being born Jewish) and for his alleged hostility to his religion of birth.

Meanwhile, however, liberals in the U.S. try to have it both ways. While they regularly went after Sheldon Adelson over his generous funding of the Republican Party, they don’t tolerate criticism of Soros as a chief funder of the Democratic Party.   

Soros is a highly influential, multi-national political figure and there is nothing that says that he should be protected from criticism.  Wealthy billionaires are now sovereigns who answer to no one and face no accountability, not even from the press which they can influence or buy.

 

Splitting the World in Two

Open Society takes its name, as is widely known, from the famous book by Karl Popper, who taught the young Soros in London.  Popper was a reactionary and he split (like Soros) the world into two spheres (just like former President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden): the open society and the closed society. 

In interviews and his writings, Soros creates a rigid line of demarcation between the two societies.  The open society is where people are, ostensibly, inquisitive and critical and not subject to inculcation and domination. And the closed societies were typified in the writings of Popper by the Nazi and communist regimes. 

The conflation of communism and Nazism has been a successful U.S. government (and Soros) propaganda project and has infused academic works, especially those writing on totalitarianism.  

The “founding” totalitarianism conference at Harvard was partly a U.S. government project.  The word was reserved for governments that are not liked by Washington. 

The apartheid regime of South Africa, for example, never fell into the category of totalitarian or even authoritarian (South Africa under apartheid was a non-secret ally of Western powers in the Cold War and in Western white supremacist policies in Africa and elsewhere).  

Meanwhile, the notion that people in closed societies are neither inquisitive nor critical is belied by the very work by Soros and his allies in the U.S. government and the Vatican during the Cold War.  

They supported and funded reactionary groups in communist countries because they defied their governments and were raising questions and opposing policies of the government.  (Naturally, neither Soros nor the Western powers supported groups or movements that criticized a communist government from a leftist perspective).

Popper warned against “unlimited tolerance,” so his open society can be closed to ward off dangerous ideas and movements.  

This in itself can serve as a recipe for government repression, similar to the Western governmental repression of leftism.  

And who decides who are the intolerant among us?  Soros has not spoken against that in his writings or lectures.

People in developing countries have been increasingly criticizing the expanding role of media and civic groups funded by Soros’ foundation.  Imagine if a Chinese billionaire were to launch a campaign of funding groups and media in Western societies?  It is doubtful that Western governments would not crack down on that funding. 

But when governments in developing countries consider restrictions on such blatantly political funding, Western governments and media decry any interference in the funding. They insist it be left unrestricted. 

(Of course, Soros is far more likely to be active in countries that are not under direct U.S. domination: there is more Soros funding in Lebanon and Tunisia, for example, and none in the Gulf, perhaps because Gulf countries achieved the ideal of “open societies” that Soros strives for.)

Some Arab groups and media with Open Society Foundations funding have resorted to a new tactic in defending Soros from Arab critics. They say (as Daraj media has said) that he can’t be accused of having a Zionist agenda because he is criticized inside Israel itself.  However, that does not disprove Soros’ Zionist agenda, since such criticisms of him are part of the internal polemics among Israeli political parties, all of which are Zionist. 

Soros has supported the “left” in Israel where the left is more like the center in other countries and is often blind to Israeli racism and injustices toward Palestinians.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his last book, strongly attacked former U.S. President Barack Obama, but that does not make Obama anti-Zionist.

In an article in The New York Review of Books, and in the unauthorized biography of Soros by Robert Slater, we learn that Soros admitted that he refrained for years from criticizing Israel because he did not want to supply “its enemies” with weapons.  By enemies Soros must have had in mind the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation and not having the luxury of receiving funding from Soros to create their open and free society.  

Soros may not be an enthusiastic Zionist but he has certainly dealt with Israel in a way that contrasts sharply with his handling of communist regimes in Europe. For Soros, Israeli Jewish society is what concerns him, and for that he invested there and supported the Netanyahu financial “reforms,” i.e, the elimination of the last vestiges of the state sector.

Among Arab media and civic groups that receive funding from Soros support such socially liberal causes as LGBTQ rights, coinciding with a generally Western bias that includes an absolute categorical abhorrence of the adoption of themes of resistance against Israel and the discussion of Israel purely in the mild language of the State Department’s spokesperson.

The focus in those media is that of the U.S. government: I counted on Lebanon-based social media platform Megaphone two months ago that for every 50 posts about Iran there was one about Israel, and the language about Israel is always polite and deferential while the language about Russia, Iran and Syria is adamant, and mockery and sarcasm (with images implanted) are common.  

Soros has a big, unfair role in world affairs, and this role is the product of the advantages of capitalist injustice.  He wants to support “open societies” but his agenda never deviated from that of U.S. imperialism.

 

 

As`ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the Historical Dictionary of Lebanon (1998), Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism (2002), The Battle for Saudi Arabia (2004) and ran the popular The Angry Arab blog. He tweets as @asadabukhalil

 

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/05/30/asad-abukhalil-soros-in-the-arab-world/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..............

jake hates peace.....

 

BY Viktor Mikhin

 

Why did Jake Sullivan fly to Saudi Arabia?

 

The unconditional further strengthening of Saudi Arabia’s authority and influence in the Middle East in the recent period has significantly increased the general interest in developing relations with the kingdom. This is especially true of the “beacon of democracy,” the United States, and its closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Ten years ago, in assessing Saudi Arabia’s international activities, many assumed that Riyadh preferred to give money to various elements in the region and entrust them with protecting its interests. At one time, the Saudis, according to some reports, even allegedly gave money to the Islamic State (a terrorist group banned in the Russian Federation) to make the group fight against the Iraqi government, which had fallen under Iranian influence. The Saudis thought they were rich enough to give money to others and hire them to fight for their cause.

That changed when King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud ascended the Saudi throne, and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, became very active in the region. As a result, today, after seven years of mutual hostility, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran are resuming diplomatic relations. A Saudi delegation visited Sana’a in April to conclude an agreement with Yemen, informing that country’s presidential council of its decision to end its involvement in the war and permanently close the Yemen issue.

Even in the energy war unleashed by the United States over the past two years to redistribute global influence in its favor in the gas and oil markets, Riyadh is undoubtedly emerging as a winner. With Russia’s help, it is skillfully adjusting OPEC’s policy and volumes of oil production in order not only to balance oil prices not lower than $80 per barrel, which is convenient for the producers, but also to make Washington reckon with Riyadh’s opinion.

In these circumstances, Washington was forced to adjust, or rather soften, its position in relations with Saudi Arabia, to which Joe Biden’s administration, immediately after coming to the White House, assigned an openly contemptuous role.  And if in 2021 the US president promised to make Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud a pariah, in July 2022 he was forced to go to him under a barrage of criticism in the US and abroad.

In recent months, the situation in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world has taken a particularly sharp turn, with rising anti-American sentiment across the board and a serious shift from the unipolar world that Washington had been building, towards a multipolar world actively promoted by Moscow. And one of the important poles of this multipolar world is Saudi Arabia, which demonstrates its ability and readiness to build good-neighborly relations with all comers and actively participate in international life.

Against this background the White House made a decision to intensify the “building of bridges” with Riyadh on an urgent basis by sending there Assistant to the President for National Security Jake Sullivan. The haste to organize such a visit was caused by Washington’s growing concern about China’s rising influence in the region, which is a fundamental component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, as well as China’s widening presence in the Middle East, especially after its mediating role in restoring diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This topic and joint plans to resolve it have been actively discussed by Washington in the I2U2 group, which includes Israel, India, the UAE and the United States. A year ago, during last year’s I2U2 meetings, Israel proposed, as a counterweight to the Chinese initiative to link the region by railroads, drawing on India’s experience in major infrastructure undertakings. After a short reflection, the White House decided to make this one of its key Middle Eastern initiatives, suggesting that Saudi Arabia be included in the project as well. The railroad network will link the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea, and a sea route will be laid to India.

 As for Israel, although now it is not an official participant in this transport project, Washington hopes that Israel can join it later, if it manages to normalize relations with the countries of the region. And in this respect, Tel Aviv and Washington are obviously counting on Saudi Arabia, through rapprochement with which, as Tzachi Hanegbi, head of the Israeli National Security Council, who met with Jake Sullivan the day before his trip to Riyadh, said, a “historic turning point” for the Jewish state will be possible. As Israel Hayom noted in early May, the chances of rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia are allegedly increasing, despite the agreement to resume diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Tehran.

The issue has been tentatively probed by the United States many times recently, and Washington is now examining the conditions and demands put forward by the Saudis. In particular, these Saudi demands include: a defense alliance, a civilian nuclear program, increased trade and an end to criticism over the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The most worrisome of these for Israel is civilian nuclear power, which has left Israeli authorities faced with the dilemma of either a rapprochement with the guardian country of the two shrines of Islam or the possibility of a leading Arab country possessing nuclear weapons. Lobbying for rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia in the US is now involving a number of politicians, among them US Senator Lindsey Graham who recently visited Riyadh and Jerusalem. In one of his recent public appearances, Graham reiterated that even though he is a “Republican” he will support “Democrat” Joe Biden if the administration accepts the Saudi demands. In doing so, Graham warned that this possibility of rapprochement has a “limited” time frame and if not done in 2023 or early 2024, “the window could close.”

In addition to Lindsey Graham, Florida presidential candidate Ron DeSantis is also in favor of rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In particular, he points out that there is “a great opportunity today” for an alliance between the United States, Israel and the Arab countries in the face of growing Iranian influence, and this is something that can be achieved under such difficult conditions in the region. With the right policies, the American governor pointed out, one could see the KSA finally recognize “the existence of Israel.” Still, there is a good proverb about this – don’t count your chickens before they hatch!

So the recent visit of US Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Jake Sullivan to Riyadh had a very concrete goal, and was far beyond just “repairing bridges” between the US and Saudi Arabia. Quite obviously, it was also aimed at trying to push for a rapprochement between the guardian country of the two shrines of Islam and the Jewish state, and through this alliance Israel would try to maintain a controlling position in the Middle East for Washington. Fortunately, the current world has changed seriously, and there are other powers in the Middle East that Riyadh greatly favors.

 

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2023/05/22/why-did-jake-sullivan-fly-to-saudi-arabia/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW................