Connie Bruck's profile of Sheldon Adelson in the New Yorker continues to resonate.
Says Christopher Varley: "I have written about the pernicious influence of Israel ’s so-called friends in America on many occasions. They use their wealth and influence to bully U.S. and Israeli legislators, buy influence in the press, even to re-define Jewish identity.
Sheldon Adelson is using his immense wealth to reshape
reality. Bruck’s profile makes grim reading.”
While John O’Keeffe questions me for saying the New Yorker was valiant on Vietnam, and questions the role of the Jewish cultural establishment: “In Generations (1990), Strauss and Howe said Nixon split the antiwar movement by extending grad school deferments. Thery argue that boomers did not really object to the war. They just objected to themselves going to the war. Nixon was wily and knew that. So thru lottery schemes and deferments did Nixon shore off the anti war movement?…Milton Friedman said that the more economically productive should not die when some other lower IQ dope could always go…Okay my paraphrase is rough. But what did the New Yorker say to that? Did they even notice? When did the New Yorker turn on Vietnam, before or after Nixon began his massive rampdown from 540,00 men in Jan 69 to 60K in Nov 1972?” I want to say they were pre-69. That’s my clouded memory. I could be wrong Haven’t looked into it. There was truly populist thinking among Jewish antiwar leaders–just read Bob Feldman.
Related posts:
- ‘New Yorker’ Makes Adelson Out to Be Nutjob Likudnik– and Fails to Describe His Broad Following in the Jewish Establishment
- ‘The New Yorker’ Resumes Its Position as Journalistic Leader
- Adelson Again. The Culture’s Double Standard for Christian and Jewish Right-Wing Moguls
- ‘The New Yorker’ and Iraq–Still No Penance
- ‘The New Yorker’ Cover Is…. Genius!
{ 2 comments }
The ultimate proof that the strength of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam Era was the result of younger male worry about the Draft is that there has been nothing remotely following it during this latest (undeclared) war with Iraq.
Charles, I think that's a oversimplification.
Now, we have on campuses the pressence of forces funded by the Lobby, the goals of which are to oppose the withdrawal of Americans from the Mideast and start a new war with Iran. The fact that the Lobby is identified with being Jewish makes it easy for the Zionists to use threats of antisemitism to cloak their pro war actions.
And I may be wrong but I don't think the leaders of the antiwar movement "like" the culture of Islam,which they identify with Hamas and Iran…
The Vietnamese on the other hand were considered to be a nice people, certainly not a threat in any way to Israel…
Comments on this entry are closed.