Back in the shtetl the two highest values in Jewish life were wealth and learning. Well I’m pitting the learning against the wealth here. I’m going to keep on my theme of Jewish wealth in politics, inasmuch as it distorts our policy in the Middle East.
Last year Seymour Hersh, god bless him, openly spoke of “Jewish money” when he criticized the push to attack Iran. And my correspondent Nim Chimpsky (I wish I knew who he was, but I trust him anyway) just sent me a selection from Hersh’s 1991 book “The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy”:
“… The group agreed on an initial contribution of $500,000 to the presidential campaign, with more to come. ‘I called him [Kennedy] right away,’ said Feinberg. ‘His voice broke. He got emotional’ with gratitude.
“Kennedy was anything but grateful the next morning in describing the session to Charles L. Bartlett, a newspaper columnist and close friend. He had driven to Bartlett’s home in northwest Washington and dragged his friend on a walk, where he recounted a much different version of the meeting the night before. ‘As an American citizen he was outraged,’ Bartlett recalled, ‘to have a Zionist group come to him and say: “We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.’” Kennedy, as a presidential candidate, also resented the crudity with which he’d been approached. ‘They wanted control,’ he angrily told Bartlett.
“Bartlett further recalled Kennedy promising to himself that if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it”–a candidate’s perennial need for money and resulting vulnerability to the demands of those who contributed. Kennedy, in fact, kept that promise before the end of his first year in office, appointing a bipartisan commission in October to recommend ways to broaden “the financial base of our presidential campaigns.” In a statement that was far more heartfelt than the public or the press could perceive, he criticized the current method of financing campaigns as “highly undesirable” and “not healthy” because it made candidates “dependent on large financial contributions of those with special interests.” Presidential elections, Kennedy declared, were “the supreme test of the democratic process” in the United States. (pages 96-97)
Nim adds: JFK wanted a nuclear-free near east with inspectors at Dimona
and a resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem (which would be a
policy based on American interests or perhaps even regional or
international interests). I don’t think his patrons liked those ideas
much. they wanted a policy based on Israel’s interests. and as they
say, when you pay the piper, you call the tune.
To which I’d add: Israel got nukes. Nukes seem to have played a role in causing the ‘67 War. Now Iran wants nukes; and this time around the U.S. is contemplating military attacks. Maybe it’s time to get nukes out of the Middle East? Isn’t Dimona a bargaining chip?
As for the Pierre Hotel incident, here is Abba Eban writing (in “Dewey David Stone: Prototype of an American Zionist,” published in an American Jewish Historical Society collection) on the same subject:
“[W]hen he became a presidential candidate in 1960, John F. Kennedy was again plagued by memories of his father’s equivocal attitude on Nazism. Dewey [Stone, a leading Israel lobbyist] suggested that the candidate accept the invitation of the Zionist Organization of America to be the principal speaker at its convention. Kennedy presented his views with eloquence and passion and firmly dissociated himself from his father’s war-time attitude. At a meeting arranged in the apartment of Abraham Feinberg at the Hotel Pierre in August 1960, Dewey Stone, with a group of influential Jewish leaders, interrogated Kennedy stringently on matters affecting Jews and Israel. It appeared that Kennedy made honest and candid responses to the questions asked of him….
“No historian would question the judgment that without the support of American Jewry, Israel’s emergence out of vulnerability and weakness into sovereignty and successful resistance could not have been conceived.”
Reminds you of Obama and AIPAC, doesn’t it? I wonder how secretly ticked off Obama is. Of course the only religious obeisance anyone mentions apropos of Kennedy is his speech to the Houston Protestant ministers in ‘60. Slowly but surely, knowledge of the Israel lobby is growing.
Related posts:
- Jimmy Carter Can’t Say What Jewish Critics of Israel Are Free to Say
- In NY synagogue, Israeli settler leader calls for assassination of Abbas– and tax-deductible contributions
- Zionist ‘Forward’ Seeks to Coopt Workmen’s Circle’s (Non-Zionist) Heritage
- Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Zionist?
- The late campaign fraud
{ 28 comments }
Mordechai Vananu was arrested right after he claimed that Mossad had a hand in the Kennedy murder. Kennedy had wanted to inspect Dimona.. Kennedy's successors strangely had no interest in Dimona.
It continually amazes me that Hersh ever got a single article printed in NYTimes.
Post on the OIL LOBBY, the GUN LOBBY, the ARAB OIL LOBBY, as well, if you want my respect.
Even if you are going to examine the influence of Jewish money in politics, or Jewish money in philantropy as you have periodically, take the damn time to actually investigate WHAT Jews that contribute, contribute to, and on what basis and priority.
I contest that you MISLEAD, by your fixation. Rather than illuminate, you distort.
Money is in politics, certainly. Money is power certainly, in MANY ways, absent a strong civil emphasis.
You are NOT advocating for a strong civil emphasis. You are picking a single faction of a small group's influence, but using the GENERAL term "Jewish money".
They way that you undertake this is contemptuous Phil.
All the ultra-Zionists like Witty use the same childish refrain of "It's not us, it's them!" or "Don't look at us, look at them!" which all of us learned in third or fourth grade was unethical, immoral, and only got us into more trouble.
You try and talk about the Nakba and the current plight of the Palestinians, they bring up medieval conquests. You try and talk about about aid to Israel, they bring up aid to their prisoners, the Palestinians. At no time will you EVER get them to evaluate the morality and ethical nature of their and Israel's actions. This is because there is no moral or ethical basis, and they know it, so to enter that discussion in good faith would mean the end of their little Biblically-not-justified genocidal Apartheid party.
Witty, a group of ultra-Zionists with money acting in the name of Judaism blackmailed Kennedy to try and usurp the power of the presidency, to turn him into a puppet over issues of the entire Middle East. I challenge you to not raise your finger to point this way or that but to point the finger to yourself and the rich ultra-Zionists you regularly shmoozed.
It's time for you to do some serious soul-searching while you still have your faculties, old man.
On Kennedy.
Kennedy made his name in the Senate on his support of the McCarthyite opposition to communism, and his support for the cold war.
He and Nixon were close allies in the Senate. He was considered safe on national defense, ideologically acceptable, though untested.
In his campaign he struck out on new ground. He expressed similar balances of idealism with pragmatism that Obama presented. (Not "realist", but what is possible.)
That is what appealed to Jewish voters and Jewish donors to Kennedy's campaign. To imply that Jewish support of Kennedy was based on trivially single-issue orientation, is to MISREPRESENT Jewish political involvement and contribution.
One thing that the Kennedy campaign and the Obama campaign have in common is the repugnance for dogmatic leftist litmus tests on issues.
They desire the support of those with strong positive commitments, and stated in positive terms. (So for example, on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I would expect that they would value association with those that assert that they support the efforts of the Palestinians for a thriving nation and community.)
He currently does and should distance themselves from the negative approach, of "ANTI"-Zionism, which he genuinely don't endorse.
The reaction to that far left litmus testing is more severe than imagined repugnance at Israel Lobby perseverence.
You are WRONG trying to cast this HISTORICAL ACCOUNT as a "misrepresent[ation]." This meeting happened. It was reported accurately. No it's not "all Jews" of course, but it was the rich movers and the shakers of the community, and the ultra-Zionists of that group.
Try as you might, glimpses of the truth like this cannot be dismissed.
I don't know a single hyper-wealthy or influential person, so I have to go on instinct and interpretation of the limited information that I come across in my spare time- absolutely none of my family or friends are interested.
I believe that it is obvious that certain Jews have influence in the U.S. that plays a major role in distorting culture and policy to benefit what they believe to be in the interest of the Jewsish community and Israel. I also believe the same Jews to be hostile to traditional American culture and citizens.
What I don't quite accept is the notion that Jewish wealth is enough to control the nation. Going on memory, many of the wealthiest Americans are not Jewish at all, and the vast majority of the population is not Jewish. So money alone is not what cements Jewish power and influence.
My guess that Jewish power rests on organization and zelotry. I've often heard that Israel is a base for data mining information and money laundering. If so, each can be a powerful tool for corruption.
http://www.sandersresearch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1356&Itemid=97
If I'm not wrong Zionism is more like organized crime than a political movement, and should be treated as such. How entrenched are Zionists in the FBI and law enforcement?
Richard Witty wrote: "To imply that Jewish support of Kennedy was based on trivially single-issue orientation, is to MISREPRESENT Jewish political involvement and contribution."
It's not Phil making that claim, Richard. It's how Kennedy himself saw it: "We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy."
Re: Todd — "Going on memory, many of the wealthiest Americans are not Jewish at all, and the vast majority of the population is not Jewish."
You are incorrect about this. Close to the majority of the wealthiest Americans are indeed ethnically Jewish, even though the vast majority of the population is not Jewish.
In terms of the hyper-wealthy and influential, about 40-50% of America's billionaires (and probably an even higher percentage of America's millioniares) are Jews even though they are only about 2% of the overall population. Many are now legitimately asking: how 'democratic' is it that a small ethnic minority wields that much wealth, power, and influence all out of proportion to their small numbers in the population?
Even average Jews are much more well-off than most Americans. It was reported recently by Pew that nearly 50% of American Jews make over $100,000 a year, which is far above any other American ethnic or religious group.
With that much money and power at their disposal, Jewish money influences not only American politics but just about everything else in America. Do some research and you'll come to this conclusion.
"With that much money and power at their disposal, Jewish money influences not only American politics but just about everything else in America. Do some research and you'll come to this conclusion."
You may be right, Ari. I'm just going by recollections of Forbes listings. Bill Gates, the Walton family, Warren Buffett are high on the list, and I remember them holding huge sums of money- far more combined than most.
I know that Jews tend to make more than average Americans, but they also tend to live in the most expensive areas of the nation where $100k yearly doesn't buy what a much smaller salary would in other areas.
I have mixed feelings about income. If people make their money ethically, is it my business to comment? On the other hand, there does seem to be a Jewish old boys network that would have many Jews screaming racism or discrimination if they weren't benefitting themselves- many still complain about WASP privilege.
Jews do seem to do quite well financially, but I'm still not sure that such a small group of people control anywhere near the majority of the legal/visible wealth in the nation.
My guess is that as a group certain Jews have always consciously positioned themselves near power, and looked for or hastened, a time of weakness or inattention to make a move at power themselves.
I could be wrong, but I don't see the Jewish position as very stable in the long run.
Witty doesnt want to hear that his peeps are elites in america and that israel is a criminal apartheid state and and and ….that aipac oppresses our politicians into being cowardly frigin bastages when it comes to standing up for our country.
now please lets continnue exploring jfk and israels nuclear ambitions and americas cowardly sellout politicians ….and Ben Gurions resignation….
The IDIOCY and the mediocre journalism (and Walt/Mearsheimer's mediocre scholarship) is in the generalization, even the inference of generalization.
We've been through this before.
"Jewish money", rather than specific individuals actions (even those accusations have been gratuitous). And, identifying only Jewish names, rather than a more thorough comprehensive investigation, is generalization by inference (THE fascistic approach).
Its not even an introspective ethical inquiry into how "we" use our money, as the audience here is largely NOT Jewish, a choir (as in preaching to the choir).
How can Phil even claim to be able to get credible candor from Jewish donors in sufficient breadth to form valid conclusions about it, as he's burned his bridges so thoroughly with the tone of his postings?
Gore Vodal once said that John Kennedy told him that the only reason Truman beat Dewey was that wealthy Jews gave Truman a suitcase full of cash when his whistlestop express was broke.
Actually this:
"Even average Jews are much more well-off than most Americans. It was reported recently by Pew that nearly 50% of American Jews make over $100,000 a year, which is far above any other American ethnic or religious group."
Isn't correct.
According to the US Census/IRS data on income levels it goes like this:
White (gentile)(causian) Americans
Asian -Americans
Jewish -Americans
African- Americans
Hispanic-Americans
I am not surprised that Asian Americans are among the highest earners in the US.
While there are obviously some rich Jews, it probably is overplayed because so much is written about their money involvement in poliitics and they are very played up in the press.
What would the NYT do without it's articles on rich Jews?
Interestingly… you don't see the uber wealthy gentiles like Gates and Buffet and Turner and etc putting a lot of money into politics. If I remember correctly Turner gave a billion dollars to the UN. But most of the time gentiles who got their money in a more low profile way than the above are more likely not to publicize their gifts or donations or contributions. People with lots, lots, lots of money don't usually want the public notority and are loath to have their exact worth revealed….it could attract a lot of undesirable and unwanted attention.
Something's wrong with your income statistics, American. (Since when did the IRS gather data on ethnicity?)
Maybe it would be best to just post a link.
here again is another example of zionism turning its back on european jewry…..and the jews of today to their shame i might add, still turn their eyes from this crime on the part of zionist and go along sucking up to them.
http://jewsagainstzionism.com/
Yitzchak Greenbaum
Yitzhak Gruenbaum was chairperson of the Jewish Agency's Rescue Committee.
In the beginning of February, 1943, Yitzchak Greenbaum addressed a meeting in Tel Aviv on the subject, "The Diaspora and the Redemption" in which he stated:
"For the rescue of Jews in the Diaspora, we should consolidate our excess strength and the surplus of powers that we have. When they come to us with two plans–the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land–I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraization of the land. If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the "Keren Hayesod" (United Jewish Appeal) to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No! and once again No!"
…Holocaust Victims Accuse, pp 26.
Excerpted from a speech in 1943
The extreme MALEVOLENCE and VITRIOL of the anti-Zionist position is in its generalization of facts and INTOLERANT dismissal of Zionist propaganda.
If Phil does not improve his tone, I swear, I am going to nag him incessantly about how much harm he is doing by following his conscience. Yeah–I'm gonna keep doing that.
Eschewing a balanced perspective and what still exists of the good left/right–for nothing other than one's own conscience–is an act of self-marginalization.
The media just treats it like what it is.
Phil is cutting himself off from important CHANNELS.
He is writing for provincial schmo like Pinche Bucanón rather than a principled, privileged political schmuck like Marty Peretz. What narishkayt!
(You know I have heard that all of his posts here on this blog are moderated by Mr. Buchanan as well, or that is my understanding at least.)
Never Again is an eternal internal external. I will never again be silent to slander. And as a tantric practitioner I believe in the value of self-immolation, and doing it to others.
To the anti-Zionists I affirm:
A Zionist is a GOOD, which means that the acquisition of more of them makes us* all RICHER.
I will proceed saving this poor, poor journalist-man's soul, even if I have to drag every single goddamned one of my deceased relatives and YOURS into this fetid political mudbath.
Because if we cannot protect one people's right to assert its right to deny rights to other people, civilization itself is at risk.
Twice returned from the dead today. I just know I wil not survive the sweet spell of p.a.zionism.
That comment attributed to Richard Witty, was not posted by me.
P.A.Z.-J.E.W. sounds a lot like the agent provocateur who plays the antisemitic conspiracy-theorist Jew who converted to Christianity and runs the "blog" at "Real Jew News" at realjewnews.com
One of the biggest fake antisemitic and antigentilic disgraces on the internet.
Well, "he" definitely is fake, and muddies the waters, rather than illuminates them.
'"Bartlett further recalled Kennedy promising to himself that if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it"–'
'Reminds you of Obama and AIPAC, doesn't it? I wonder how secretly ticked off Obama is.'
My sentiments exactly. What we wouldn't give to be a fly on the inside wall of Obama's brain. Kennedy didn't get the chance (does Vanunu's assertion have any evidence at all? My God, the blowback if that were proved. Phil has made the observation that like Kennedy (and unlike say Clinton) Obama is cool, even cold, in decision-making mode. Let's hope he gets the opportunity to exercise that coolness.
'Kennedy's successors strangely had no interest in Dimona.'
Johnson preferred the Jews 'inside the tent pissing out' than vice versa.
'take the damn time to actually investigate WHAT Jews that contribute, contribute to, and on what basis and priority.'
I can live with that idea. Phil has said he is trying to get the green light for a piece on Saban – you'd be pleased with that 'actual investigation', wouldn't you Richard? Then we can move on to Kovner, Leviev, Lauder, Bronfman, Hertog, Schwartzman, the list goes on. No need to limit ourselves to the big fish either – all those PACs that dominate the DLC are ripe for some disinfecting sunshine too. How about it?
'Many are now legitimately asking: how 'democratic' is it that a small ethnic minority wields that much wealth, power, and influence all out of proportion to their small numbers in the population?'
That is the absolute nub of it, though I'd add 'a small ethnic minority that is sentencing our children to death on the altar of their racialist utopia'. It's the last bit that has energised me.
What happens when the ancient 'canard' that wealthy and zealous Jewish cabals have too much unhealthy influence on governments turns out to have a solid basis in fact? That is what's happening here.
'Interestingly… you don't see the uber wealthy gentiles like Gates and Buffet and Turner and etc putting a lot of money into politics.'
They don't have an Israel, and if they're not careful they won't have an America either. They don't have a preference for, a fealty to another country like the Zionists do.
'Well, "he" definitely is fake, and muddies the waters, rather than illuminates them.'
You are certainly we qualified to make such a judgement.
If Phil were investigate the contributions of Saban, he should pick a similarly ideological right-wingnut to examine.
But, it is also a taboo for a Jew to inquire of a secretive lilly-white America Firster.
The neo-cons are a subset of the cons. Most of the old-cons remain loyal to the Iraq war effort. Only a few, and only those that call themselves "libertarian" in some respect, in a great personal embellishment, oppose the Bush/Cheney war.
I saw an interview with Barr yesterday on George Stephanopolis. "Too much government. Too much government intrusion. Get rid of Guantanamo. Restore habeus corpus." (Sounds civilized).
But then. "Get rid of federal taxation. Get rid of government regulation. Remove restrictions on minerals drilling and mining."
And, then he just sounds the like the old con, not all that different from Buchanan, or Paul.
P.A.Z.-J.E.W. sounds a lot like the agent provocateur
Nope bud, purely satire.
muddies the waters
In that case, Richard, I must've captured you well, since you have nothing but disdain for Phil's crystal clear facts and clean conscience. You demonstrate it on a daily basis.
But, it is also a taboo for a Jew to inquire of a secretive lilly-white America Firster.
What a bizarre, paranoid, and completely unsubstantiated statement. In short, essential Witty.
Anyone can read all about Truman's POV on Zioninsts and Jews with financial and media power; how they came to him, saying if he didn't recognize Israel they would defeat him by backing Dewey. Just go to the Truman Library archives. Kennedy should've known this history, if he didn't. Truman's and Kennedy's respective POV from first hand experience was identical.
From Stephen D. Isaacs "Jews and American Politics":
"This was George S. McGovern's debut at trying to raise "big money" for his attempt to win the Presidency of the United States and he had a right to be nervous. The men seated around that table were big money. Indeed, billions of dollars in personal net worth was represented at the table. Laurence Tisch had invited his friends… Alfred P. Slaner … Morris L. Levinson … Preston Robert Tisch … Robert Bernstein … Saul P. Steinberg… Arthur G. Cohen … R. Peter Strauss …, and Meshulam Riklis…"
"He (McGovern) said he supposed that the best way they could all get to know each other would be for him to answer questions. He remained standing and looked around the table. A slight, greying, carefully tailored man, seated several places to his right rose. He spoke with a noticeable Hebrew accent in identifying himself as Meshulam Riklis. … 'Senator', Riklis asked, just what is your position on Israel?'
"The only hope for a just and permanent settlement in the Middle East, McGovern answered, looking down the table at Riklis, was not an imposed peace, but a negotiated one, worked out in a world forum like the United Nations."
"With that answer, McGovern blew most of the traditional big money from Jews in 1972, money that was to go first to Hubert Humphrey, then later into the Republican campaign in unprecedented amounts."
See article – Occupied America – by a White Nationalist for more quotes.
there was a beautiful Wittycism I spotted up there somewhere:
– not "realist", but what is possible -
Comments on this entry are closed.