Australian Civil Liberties Union
Your Rights 2004
MIDDLE EAST WAR
Power of the Jewish Lobby. Israel's Proxy War. History Coming Up - Iraq, etc
Joe Sobran, 3 December 2002
A decade ago, the neoconservative publicity machine was touting the idea that the world had reached “the end of history,” in the instantly famous phrase of Francis Fukuyama. And a happy ending it was! The forces of “democratic capitalism” had triumphed over the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century --Communism, Nazis, and Fascism.
Since then, alas, history has been rearing its ugly head again. It turns out that history had been prematurely consigned to the dustbin of history.
The United States is at war yet again -- a War on Terrorism, as it’s called, though it actually seems to be a War on Evil Arabs -- Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, whoever -- while the Arabs see it as a War on Islam. Jonathan Raban, an excellent student of the Arab-Muslim world, observes that millions of poor Arabs now name their baby boys Osama.
Arab weaponry can’t begin to match the American military, so this war won’t be fought on battlefields. It will be fought wherever the Arab warriors and their Muslim allies choose to fight it. So far they have struck mostly at “soft” targets -- nonmilitary defenseless civilian targets -- in places as disparate as New York, Bali, and Kenya, causing enormous terror and disruption. There are large Arab communities throughout Europe and even in the lawless “triple border” of South America, where Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet.
The Thanksgiving attacks on Israeli property in Kenya may tell us what to expect in the future. The suicide bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel is the sort of thing we’ve already come to take in stride. The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger plane is another matter. Shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles could have devastating impact on the precarious airline industry and on tourism around the world.
The Arab-American War -- for that’s what it boils down to -- could go on forever, making a lot of history along the way. Striking at Arab states like Iraq won’t make any difference, because those states are artificial creations of Western imperialism anyway. They neither control the Arab warriors nor command their loyalty. As Raban points out, the warriors despise the Arab dictators, whom they regard as “usurpers,” traitors to Islam.
Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and radical Muslims in general would be happy to see the United States destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime. They want to see all the Arab dictatorships destroyed and replaced by a vast Islamic empire, with the existing borders erased. And of course they haven’t the faintest desire to adopt or emulate the model of “democratic capitalism.”
So President Bush’s misconceived War on Terrorism could easily wind up serving the purposes of the terrorists That’s history for you - full of cunning ironies.
The Israelis (and their agents in this country’s government and press) also want the United States to topple the Arab regimes, their enemies. Not for the first time, Israeli interests and those of the radical Muslims coincide. Both sides want endless war between Americans and Arabs. Whether this is good for Americans is of no concern to them.
And what will the war mean for ordinary Americans? We are already seeing sharp changes in our way of life, as “national security” trumps customary freedoms. American businesses, embassies, and tourists will face increasing danger all over the world. At home, the power of the state will expand, perhaps to totalitarian dimensions. Limited government will become an ever more distant memory.
Not that most Americans will mind. In fact, many of them are already clamoring for more government powers to defeat terrorism. They believe in curtailing freedom in order to defend it. The government can count on plenty of support for harsh and unconstitutional measures.
Nobody can predict where all this will end. History is full of surprises. You may know all the balls on the pool table, but you can’t foresee how they will ricochet when the cue ball breaks them.
But it’s always unwise to suppose that anyone can control history’s patterns. The U.S. Government will probably defeat the Iraqi regime, but how the balls will ricochet during and after the war is another matter entirely -- especially since Bush and his inner circle haven’t stopped to ask themselves whether they’re fighting the right enemy.
As the poet says: “There are many events in the womb of time, which will be delivered.”
Look at The ‘Powerful Jewish Lobby’
For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.
Most of the world regards Israel’s policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.
“The whole world,” United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, “is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don’t think the whole world ... can be wrong.” [note 1]
Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.
Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic,” he said. “People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful.” [note 2]
Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence -- vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.
As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out: [note 3]
Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked
Jews are only three percent of the nation’s population and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation’s elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the “disproportionate political power” of Jews, which is “pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America.” He goes on to explain that “Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry.” [note 4]
Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [note 5]
During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.
The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, is “far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns.” One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations “estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign.” [note 6]
“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture,” acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. “Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” [note 7]
One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [note 8]
In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation
Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films.
The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.
Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Americans readily accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is impressed. “I am very angry with some of the Jews,” complained actor Marion Brando during a 1996 interview. “They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It’s owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering.” [note 9]
A Well-Entrenched Factor
The intimidating power of the “Jewish lobby” is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life.
In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of Jewish power in the media and government. The shy 39-year-old -- known around the world for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo trans-Atlantic crossing -- was addressing 7,000 people in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US involvement in the war then raging in Europe. The three most important groups pressing America into war, he explained, were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration.
Of the Jews, he said: “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.” Lindbergh went on:
… For reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, [they] wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we must also look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [note 10]
How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles.
As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote Lilienthal, news coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American television, newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic to Israel. This is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal of Palestinian “terrorism.” As Lilienthal put it: “One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which cause is never related to effect, was assured because the most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control.”
One-Sided ‘Holocaust’ History
The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had a profound impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is the well entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious than in the “Holocaust” media campaign, which focuses on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II.
Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [note 11]
Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes by without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating.
Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are, for example, the tens of millions of victims of America’s World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims of China’s Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives.
The well-financed Holocaust media and “educational” campaign is crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: “With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy.” [note 12]
Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught political science at City University of New York (Hunter College), says in his book, The Holocaust Industry , that “invoking The Holocaust” is “a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews.” [note 13] “By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure ... Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel’s and its own morally indefensible policies.” He writes of the brazen “shakedown” of Germany, Switzerland and other countries by Israel and organized Jewry “to extort billions of dollars.” “The Holocaust,” Finkelstein predicts, “may yet turn out to be the ‘greatest robbery in the history of mankind’.”
Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, “believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” [note 14]
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [note 15]
I’ve never seen a President -- I don’t care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don’t have any idea what goes on.
Today the danger is greater than ever. Israel and Jewish organizations, in collaboration with this country’s pro-Zionist “amen corner,” are prodding the United States -- the world’s foremost military and economic power --into new wars against Israel’s enemies. As the French ambassador in London recently acknowledged, Israel --which he called “that shitty little country” -- is a threat to world peace. “Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?,” he said. [note 16]
To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The “Jewish lobby” is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American interests. In fact, they often conflict.
As long as the “very powerful” Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of current affairs and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace.
1. Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11.
2. D. Tutu, “Apartheid in the Holy Land,” The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002.
3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.
4. S. Steinhight, “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy,” Center for Immigration Studies , Nov. 2001. http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html
5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.
6. Janine Zacharia, “The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State,” The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2,. 2000. Reprinted in “Other Voices,” June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
7. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment , Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
8. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-29 1.
9. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. “Brando Remarks,” Los Angeles Times , April 8, 1996, p. P4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks.
10. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229.
11. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306.
12. Paula E. Hyman, “New Debate on the Holocaust,” The New York Times Magazine , Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79.
13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149.
14. The New York Times , May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha’aretz , a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, “from which this article is adapted.”
15. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.
D. Davis, “French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens World Peace,” Jerusalem Post , Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador is Daniel
About the author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review.
Patrick J. Buchanan
The American Conservative. March 24, 2004
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest.
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers ... that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these "Buchananites toss around 'neoconservative'-and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen-it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is 'Jewish conservative.'" Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism." He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush "sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: "Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It's just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left."
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: "In London ... one finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the 'neoconservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy."
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine "has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the 'neoconservative war party.' "
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that "members of the Bush team have been doing Israel's bidding and, by extension, exhibiting 'dual loyalties.' "
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.
What is going on here? Slate's Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: "Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card."
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of "anti-Semitism" itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried "wolf" once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan's own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. Š These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation's founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
"If Stanley Hoffman can say this," asks Kaus, "why can't Chris Matthews?" Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, "The Likudniks are really in charge now." Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a "special closeness" to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, "For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies." And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon's interest, is it in America's interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, "Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight."
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
ot in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitism-i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbour a "passionate attachment" to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.
A new spectre
desperados comment, as Edgar Steele did on Rense.com: “The silence in
yet-unfought War on
immediately slapped by a Jewish overseer: "It is simply stunning to hear
Representative Moran make such accusations", said National Jewish
Democratic Council Executive Director, Ira N. Forman. “First, a number of the
current leaders of the anti-war movement are Jewish, and Jewish organizations
have clearly not been at the forefront among those groups actively and
stridently supporting a war in
The secret is out, and like the secret of King Midas and his long ears, it is being sung now from coast to coast, despite the frantic efforts of the organised Jewish community to clamp the lid back on the boiling cauldron. Kathleen and Bill Christison,[i] two ex-CIA experts, exposed the link between right-wing American Jews and the Bush Administration. Edward Said, the most celebrated American thinker of Palestinian origin, stated the cause: “An immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals, all of them unelected and therefore unresponsive to public pressure.”[ii]
He was seconded by courageous Herman, Neumann and Blankfort. These Americans of Jewish origin object to the un-elected, anti-democratic Jewish power as they would object to any disproportionate minority power. Their presence, as they were not afraid of the anti-Semitic label, was instrumental in turning the tide and saving the intimidated majority from its browbeating.
the author of Manufacturing Consent (together with Noam Chomsky), wrote
of “the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the
Blankfort, the Californian who defeated ADL in court and made Foxman pay heaps
of dollars for his espionage against activists, took an important next step and
rejected the views upheld by Noam Chomsky, Joel Beinin and Stephen Zunes, for
these older radicals play down the crucial importance of
Jewish power. Jeff Blankfort noticed the roots of the Rupture
Evangelicals’ meteoric rise in the
The Iraqi War,
and even more its linkage with
This response is remarkable for its typically Jewish logic. First, the opponent’s rational argument is perverted and distorted, then it is aligned with opprobrium; and at the last stage, the opponent is destroyed forever. That is one of the secrets of Jewish might: the Jews enter a dialogue berserk-like, with great vehemence, quite foreign to the Socratic style. While sane people are satisfied with quoting their opponent and fighting his arguments, madmen (for berserk is a temporarily-mad individual) go for the jugular.
David Mamet, the Jewish
American playwright, provides a good example of this vehemence as he notices a
“Volvo of old, the vehicle of my brethren, the congenitally liberal. It was
festooned, as are its kind, with every sort of correct exhortation: Save
I wonder why
Mamet stopped at this, for with equal adequacy the slogan can be translated as
Torture Babies, Denounce
It is the
racist Jewish policies in occupied
Keller of the NY Times read the Riot Act to the Americans. He kindly
allows that ‘most of the big Jewish organizations and many donors are backing
the war’ but insists that ‘the idea that
Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. A few days ago, in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an important all-Jewish conference on anti-Semitism took place under the auspicious aegis of the Sasson Centre. The talk given by the French Jewish historian Simcha Epstein dealt with pre-war France but pertained more immediately to America. This is what Epstein said:
pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of
“Since the end of 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreifus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L’Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority Jewish sources of course.
“And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press.” End of quote.
Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and re-read this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. If it is proven now beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jews of France secretly bought and subverted French media for many years in order to distort the national discourse and eventually push unprepared France into the horrible and unneeded World War Two, is it impossible to consider that the Jews of the US have secretly taken over their national media and are now pushing the US into a horrible and unneeded World War Three?
is no need for secrecy. One of the chief Zionist ideologists, Zeev Hefetz
(ex-spokesman of PM Begin), wrote in an American daily: "Disarming Iraq is
only a start in
The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion, he said. They are a civilisation, and they have their civilising mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilisation of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable.
But the war is avoidable. Even today, at minutes before H-hour, the war is avoidable. And if fire is unavoidable, let the Jewish advisers of President Bush be fired. Let this Purim see the great Exodus of the "Wolfowitz Cabal" from the Pentagon. Excluding the clinical possibility of his actual zombification, G W Bush should be able to understand that he has been misled by this powerful, un-elected minority. They cannot deliver what they promised. Moreover, their own days at the helm of the Republic are numbered. They over-estimated their abilities, and pushed too hard. As the frog of La Fontaine, they can blow up. Bush still can do a U-turn, and save himself and his country.
In a way,
It can’t be
postponed for the divisive presidency of G W Bush is perceived as the period of
‘White’ Protestant Anglo-Saxon rule, despite the prevalence of his Jewish
advisers. All available contenders for the next elections - Lieberman, Kelly and
even Kuchinich – claim their Jewish connections and declare their undivided
loyalty to Jewry and to the state of
That is why
American patriot forces should not wait for the next elections, or for the end
of war. They must act now, by calling the war off. They have an enemy, but he is
Kathleen and Bill Christison, `A Rose By Another Name: The Bush Administration's
Dual Loyalties’, Counterpunch,
[iii] Here is enough sampling to indicate that it is not:
all, Sumner Redstone ( né Murray
Rothstein) owns $8 billion dollars worth of Viacom, which gives him the
controlling interest in CBS, Viacom, MTV worldwide (Brian Graden, president),
and most recently he bought Black Entertainment
Television and proceeded immediately to cut down its public-affairs programming.
The president of CBS is Leslie Moonves, the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion.
Michael Eisner is the major owner of Disney-Capitol Cities, which owns ABC. David Westin is the president of ABC News. Although it has lost viewers, Nightline host Ted Koppel is a strong supporter of
Lloyd Braun is chair of ABC Entertainment. And there is the perennial Barbara Walters.
Neil Shapiro is the president of NBC News. Jeffrey Zucker is the head of NBC Entertainment and Jack Myers has some important post there, as well.
Although Rupert Murdoch of Fox is not Jewish, Mel Karamazin, the president of the corporation is, as is Peter Chernin, the second in command at Murdoch's News Corps.
Sandy Grushow is chairman of Fox Entertainment, and Gail Berman is president. Murtdoch has received numerous awards from various Jewish charities.
Jamie Kellner is chair and CEO of Turner Broadcasting.
Walter Issacson is the News Director of CNN which also has Wolf Blitzer, host of Late Edition, Larry King of Larry King Live, Paula Zahn, and Andrea Koppel, Ted's daughter.
Jordan Levin is chairman of Warner Bros. Entertainment.
Howard Stringer is chair of Sony Corp. of
Robert Sillerman is the founder of Clear Channel Communications,
Ivan Seidenberg is chair of Verizon Communications
Terry Semel, former co-chair of Warners is CEO of Yahoo.
Barry Diller, former owner of Universal Entertainment, is the chair of USA Interactive.
Joel Klein is chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations, the largest publishing conglomerate in the world.
Mort Zuckerman, the Chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, owns US News and World Report and the NY Daily News.
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. publishes the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publication.
Marty Peretz publishes the
Donald Graham, Jr. is the chair and CEO of Newsweek and the Washington Post.
Michael Ledeen, of Iran-Contra fame, edits National Review.
Ron Rosenthal is the Managing Editor of the SF Chronicle and Phil Bronstein is the Executive Editor.
David Schneiderman owns the Village Voice and a number of other "alternative" weeklies.
Columnist William Safire, Tom Freidman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, are among the most widely syndicated columnists.
There are a number of widely syndicated talk show hosts such as Michael Savage (ABC) on more than 100 stations, Michael Medved, 124 stations, and Dennis Prager who has an Israeli flag on his website. Others include Ron Owens, Ben Wattenberg, and former ZOA official Jon Rothman, all in
For the intellectuals, we have NPR, with pundit Daniel Schorr and weekend hosts Scott Simon and Liane Hansen, Robert Segal, Susan Stanberg, Eric Weiner, Daniel Lev, Linda Gradstein (a well-known speaker at pro-Israel events) covering Jerusalem, Mike Schuster (whose soft-ball interview with Ariel Sharon after Sabra and Shatila should have brought him before the court of Hamarabi). Brook Gladstein.
just for starters. From the boss to the delivery it's an impressive list. While
they certainly can't be put in the same box when it comes to
NY Post 22.02.03
Contents of Your Rights
Australian Civil Liberties Union