Gingrich got $5 million for saying Palestinians are invented people (lord, why am I so cynical?)

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 30 Comments
Adelson
Adelson

Why do so many people have a conspiratorial view of the Israel lobby? One reason is that our media are largely silent on what we all know to be a real  force in our politics, and so feverish minds are left to speculate.

The latest evidence. A week or so after Newt Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an invented people, his Super PAC has received $5 million from Sheldon Adelson, whose central cause is Israel.

And lo, the Associated Press fails to mention Adelson’s cause in its coverage. The Washington Post broke the story but included just one sentence about Israel, buried in paragraph 8, and ungrammatically:

Adelson is a strong supporter of Israel and his views dovetail with Gingrich on Israel and the Palestinian conflicts.

Blackout artists at The New York Times write up the gift without a word about Adelson’s cause:

As candidates spent the weekend trying to catch up to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, with the primary just two days away, a longtime supporter of Newt Gingrich donated $5 million to a “super PAC” backing his presidential bid, providing a major boost to Mr. Gingrich’s ailing campaign. The donation by Sheldon Adelson was reported Saturday night by The Washington Post. He has long been a generous patron of Mr. Gingrich’s political career….

The cash infusion from Mr. Adelson instantly catapults Winning Our Future into the top ranks of candidate super PACs, groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money from donors and spend it all on advertisements and other efforts to back a specific candidate, so long as they do not coordinate with the campaign.

You may remember that investigative reporter Michael Isikoff also forgot to mention Adelson’s cause on NBC– even as he talked about Romney’s Mormonism. Different strokes for different folks!

Speaking of money and influence, this is a quote I missed in Josh Nathan-Kazis’s report in the Forward about neoconservative money going after Obama:

“We raise a lot of money,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC. “Literally tens of millions every cycle, our members and leaders raise for candidates.”

Literally tens of millions every cycle. That’ll get some folks’ attention. Has this money played any role in Obama, Romney and Gingrich’s policy stances? Well that would be cynical, wouldn’t it…

30 Responses

  1. chet
    January 8, 2012, 1:04 pm

    The seemingly-obvious question is HOW is the MSM influenced in such a way.

    On this website in the recent past, there have been articles and discussions about the impact of “Jewish money” on US politics -is there to be one relating to the media as well?

    • Krauss
      January 8, 2012, 3:53 pm

      Joel Stein wrote a piece on this topic – albeit on Hollywood – a few years back in the LA Times.

      “How Jewish Is Hollywood?”

      link to latimes.com

      The column is probably mildly applicapable to the general media.
      Look, this is the story of Jewish ascendancy in America postwar, it’s a glorious and beautiful story. And it wouldn’t be worthy of discussing if it wasn’t for the question you raise – in relation to Israel and why Gingrich gets 5 million dollars two weeks or so after he calls the Palestinian an ‘invented’ people(and just one week after Adelson himself strongly agreed with him on a Birthright gathering recently) and why the media has a total blackout on these issues.

      As I jokingly asked, if Jamaica was the country everyone had to dance a little jig around everytime it’s mentioned – and it so happened that the media is absolutely stacked to the brim with Jamaican nationalists in senior positions, would it be unreasonable to ask the question if there is a correlation here?

      Of course, if Jamaica would be as peaceful in that scenario as it is today, it might still be interesting to have the discussion, but from an academic point of view. If Jamaica’s internal lobby would be a driving force for war with Iran – which would have devastating consequences for the world economy, despite the fact that senior brass (which have either quit or been fired) from the Jamaician military have all warned against the hyperbole, then the question wouldn’t be so unimportant anymore.

      • Philip Weiss
        January 8, 2012, 4:04 pm

        agree it’s a glorious story. stunned that it’s not widely discussed

      • Krauss
        January 8, 2012, 4:15 pm

        Ask Abe Foxman, Phil :)

        I’m reminded by the words of the late Tony Judt. “Apparently your views on Israel trumps everything in life”. Look at Finkelstein, the outrage against Kushner, the savage beating of Chas Freeman. Even Soros, hardly an angel in his life, became one of those people euphemistically branded ‘controversial’ – very late in his life after a long record of a plethora of activities, far from all very benign. All because he ventured into the territory of Israel and anti-Semitism.

        All these events are interconnected, and they all draw a common source.
        A fear of history and the complex issue of Jewish identity.

        I discussed Israel recently with one of my cousins, himself right-leaning secular Jew who supports the 2SS intellectually(but perhaps not in his gut).
        He told me, in mid-conversation, that Dutch Jewry were among one of the most free in the entire Jewish diaspora for almost 300 years. At the breakout of WWII, the Nazis were more than helped by the civilian population and 85 % perished in 4 short years.

        This is why you were told through much of your career by Jews, who were dead serious, that a pogrom could happen in America.

        This is why Abe Foxman can get away with his behaviour, and why your comment, while at face-value is obvious, after further introspection becomes almost banal and meaningless, of course through no fault of your own.

      • chet
        January 8, 2012, 4:38 pm

        There is absolutely no dispute that the ascendancy is “a glorious and beautiful story” but the issue as to how the correlative power that has been achieved is wielded is something that has to be considered in terms of the best interests of the US, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy.

        Can anyone argue that the influence of AIPAC has been anything but malign in both areas or that Jewish influence has had an adverse effect in preventing television, newspaper and magazine coverage from presenting an accurate picture to the US public of Israeli outrages in respect of the Palestinians?

      • munro
        January 8, 2012, 4:57 pm

        Forget about Chuck Jones, Dr Seuss, Jim Henson, Walt Disney, “Davey and Goliath” is the hallmark goy cartoon.

      • munro
        January 8, 2012, 5:48 pm

        Oh and Charles Schultz… Joel Stein also overlooks Aaron Spelling, Sol Saks, Sherwood Schwartz, Jerry Springer…

      • American
        January 8, 2012, 7:12 pm

        The problem isn’t that Jews own media or have influence, the problem is how and what some of them use it for.
        I don’t know how we will actually free up” our press and media to unbiased news coverage .
        It is truly sickening what passes for press and news these days–it’s all
        agenda ridden for one special interest or another or one half of America or another.
        The only bright spot is I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have a low opinion US press or media…..that at least means people know they are getting some kind of Hollywood Squares crap for news and political coverage.

    • Kathleen
      January 9, 2012, 11:51 am

      Phil has focused on this

  2. Bandolero
    January 8, 2012, 2:42 pm

    “The seemingly-obvious question is HOW is the MSM influenced in such a way.”
    Just have a look at who owns the MSM, and that question is answered.

    • chet
      January 8, 2012, 3:26 pm

      My original post wasn’t clear – the question is WHO owns WHAT and therefore able to exert influence.

      An example of the ability to exert influence is this recent M/W post re Comcast-

      NBC:link to mondoweiss.net

      David Cohen – exec v-p of Comcast – ardent Israel-Firster.

      David Roberts – chairman of Comcast – deep connections to Israel.

      Is it any wonder that the “progressive” hosts on MSNBC never utter a word of criticism re Israeli actions and policies and never have pro-Palestinian spokesmen?

      • Bandolero
        January 8, 2012, 5:06 pm

        Just a few influential US media taken from Wikipedia:

        Fox, News Corp: Rupert Murdoch (well known pro-Israel-stance)

        CBS Corporation, Viacom, MTV Networks, BET, and Paramount Pictures: majority oner: Sumner Redstone and family (His family’s name was changed from the Jewish surname Rothstein to Redstone when Sumner was 17.)

        ABC, Disney: Bob Iger (Religion: Judaism)

        NBC – see above

        What’s missing?

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        January 8, 2012, 9:35 pm

        Back in 2002, when it was revealed that in a taped White House conversation, Rev. Billy Graham told Richard Nixon that if re-elected he needed to break the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media, Graham, who at the time was the nation’s mostly widely know and respected cleric, was forced to tearfully apologize for his “antisemitic” remarks while efforts made to get Nixon to do the same were stymied by the fact that he was no longer able to do so.

        What no one, at least publicly, suggested in their defense was that since both of these men were in a position to know, personally, who was in control of America’s media, that what they had to say about it in private was, at a minimum, worth looking into.

        On my own, I decided to see if what they said had any relation to the truth so I began compiling a list of Jews in the media, at every level, exempting those who had consistently taken positions critical of Israel which didn’t amount to more than a handful.

        Using the pages of the Jewish weekly Forward, the financial pages of the NY Times, and my own prior knowledge I soon had 11 pages of names double spaced in 12 point Times Roman–proving Graham and Nixon’s point beyond the shadow of a doubt– which I sent to email list and which ended up on Al Jazeera.

        The list only contained a couple of errors. I had included Rupert Murdoch who was reputed to have a Jewish mother but was never able to verify that–although, while publicly denying it, has shown himself to be an uberZionist, and Howard Stringer, the head of Sony.

        I was accused, of course, of “making a list,” as if I was the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, and as if making lists was not an American past time, the Fortune 500 (a quarter of whom happen to Jewish) being a classic example.

        Their names being on my list did not mean that all who made it were active Zionists but it did mean that when a story having to do with Jews or Israel came across their respective desks they were not likely to treat it as just another story, the treatment of the Adelson contribution to Gingrich being a typical example, and they were subject to pressures from the organized Jewish community represented by groups like CAMERA and HonestReporting not to stick their necks out.

        One might consider the Catholic Church to be the most powerful religious group in the country but it has been unable to put a halt to the reporting of child molesting cases that have been reported with a predictable regularity by the main stream media.

        When was the last time any readers of Mondoweiss saw similar reports about the haredi rabbis who have been doing the same thing to their young charges while being protected by the leadership of those communities who claim that molestation cases should be reported to the rabbis rather than to the police? Only, it seems, readers of the very secular Forward that keeps a watchful eye on the machinations of the haredi, not just the misadventures of some of its rabbis with young boys but how its various sects have consistently scammed the taxpayers of the state of New York for Pell grants and school funding, stories you will almost never find in the NY Times national edition or any other US newspaper. Something to think about.

        Here’s the Graham-Nixon report from the Chicago Tribune:

        Nixon, Billy Graham make derogatory comments about Jews on tapes

        BY JAMES WARREN
        Chicago Tribune, Feb. 28, 2002

        CHICAGO – (KRT) – Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released Thursday by the National Archives.

        “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.

        “You believe that?” says Nixon after the “stranglehold” comment.

        “Yes, sir,” says Graham.

        “Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

        “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” replies Graham.

        Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” But, he confides to Nixon, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

      • Kathleen
        January 9, 2012, 11:55 am

        “One might consider the Catholic Church to be the most powerful religious group in the country but it has been unable to put a halt to the reporting of child molesting cases that have been reported with a predictable regularity by the main stream media.

        When was the last time any readers of Mondoweiss saw similar reports about the haredi rabbis who have been doing the same thing to their young charges while being protected by the leadership of those communities who claim that molestation cases should be reported to the rabbis rather than to the police?

        Bingo.

        Stranglehold indeed

  3. Annie Robbins
    January 8, 2012, 2:52 pm

    Literally tens of millions every cycle. That’ll get some folks’ attention.

    yeah. it’s ok for the forward to publish that but not the msm. the kind of attention that will generate is primarily those trying to silence it. maybe. the rest of us will be accused of anti semitism.

    • PeaceThroughJustice
      January 8, 2012, 3:07 pm

      “the kind of attention that will generate is primarily those trying to silence it.”

      Exactly, just as in the run-up to Iraq the religious identity of the neocons was only mentioned by the MSM in the context of whether noticing it was “antisemitic.” (Remember the uproar over the AdBusters article.)

      (P.S. I hate people who use “religious” like I did here. But it’s the usage Phil favors.)

    • American
      January 8, 2012, 7:28 pm

      There is a way to avoid any anti semitism. And that is by going directly after the ‘individual’ zionist by name, by public confrontation…similar to Code Pink and OWS…not linking it to Jews…linking it to these ‘specific’ individuals…making their names mud…attacking them ‘personally”…lable them UnAmerican or whatever you want to label them, dennounce them to the Jews , but put them in a hot seat with both their peers and the public.
      Same thing for politicians……seperate them from the herd….go after them individually.
      Make them unacceptable socially, politically and corporately. It’s the same thing they’ve been doing to others for decades.

  4. justicewillprevail
    January 8, 2012, 3:11 pm

    What exactly was that objection about votes and senators being bought by Israel again? Oh, it was pointing it out they didn’t like, not the fact that it happens, and Congress is in the pocket of some foreign apartheid-loving wingnuts.

  5. PeaceThroughJustice
    January 8, 2012, 4:09 pm

    “Sheldon Adelson to Birthright group: Gingrich is right to call Palestinians ‘invented people'”
    link to haaretz.com

  6. Erasmus
    January 8, 2012, 4:17 pm

    US “democracy” in the doldrums :

    PRESIDENCY up for S A L E !!

    But don’ t tell – it is a secret.

  7. chet
    January 8, 2012, 7:29 pm

    A propos the media, but not bearing on this post directly – at 8:45 AM PST, Leon Panetta said the following on Face The Nation:

    “WASHINGTON (AP) – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.”

    “…but is not yet building a bomb ” – major news re the US sabre-rattling, but not a word about it on the NYT website at 4:30 PM PST.

    How come?

  8. RoHa
    January 8, 2012, 7:35 pm

    I’ll say it again for three million!

    Palestinians are an invented people.

    Please send the money at once.

  9. john h
    January 8, 2012, 7:39 pm

    This situation just further highlights a plain truth that is typical of US hypocrisy.

    It is a well known fact that bribery and corruption is a way of life in so many Asian and African cultures. It is built into their social and political systems.

    The West, perhaps especially America, is so prone to criticize them for it. Yet in the US at least, it is legal, so that money and the moneyed rule and make the rules.

    Congress is bought, the President is bought, the media is bought, and each is paid for. Voters are not bought, but those they vote for and that may influence them are.

    It’s been a concern for a long time, but nothing effective is ever done about it. In fact it is full steam ahead, as seen in the Citizen’s United ruling. It is a kind of Orwellian world.

    What could and should be put in place to give us our freedom and democracy back?

    link to mondoweiss.net

  10. piotr
    January 8, 2012, 8:09 pm

    Should’t we offer to post that “Palestinian are invented people” for some amount of money? 500k would keep this site running for a few years …

  11. Richard Witty
    January 8, 2012, 10:26 pm

    ‘Congress up for S A L E !!

    But don’ t tell – it is a secret.’

    That would be one consequence of a Ron Paul presidency, raised to the fifth power.

    ‘Money in politics is constitutionally protected free speech.’

    • mig
      January 9, 2012, 12:47 pm

      ‘Money in politics is constitutionally protected free speech.’

      And outside of politics, its called corruption, in my eyes bribery.

  12. Kathleen
    January 9, 2012, 11:56 am

    Adelson is keeping Gingrich in the race

  13. Nevada Ned
    January 9, 2012, 7:57 pm

    At the beginning of this thread, Phil Weiss complained that the mainstream media was mentioning the Adelson/Gingrich connection without mentioning the Israel connection.
    Now, the cat is out of the bag. From Yahoo news..

    link to news.yahoo.com

    Yahoo refers to a lengthy and unflattering profile of Adelson that appeared in the New Yorker in the summer of 2008. Adelson is a VERY big kingmaker in Israel.

Leave a Reply