Clinton and Israel– the Marc Rich story

Israel/Palestine
on 74 Comments

I can’t stay away from a piece of American political history: Bill Clinton being beholden to Israelis. I wonder what it portends for Hillary Clinton, should she run for the highest office in the this-land-is-your-land.

Two weeks ago, Marc Rich died–the international financier who loved Israel and was famously pardoned by Clinton in 2001, at the last minute of his presidency. The Times obit said that the Israelis played a big role in that pardon:

For years influential Israelis, including ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the former chief of the Mossad spy agency, Shabtai Shavit, had been urging Clinton to pardon Rich, who over two decades had contributed up to $80 million to Israeli hospitals, museums, symphonies and to the absorption of immigrants.

In 2009, Joe Conason reported that the Israelis really wanted the pardon because Rich was a major financial and intelligence asset to them:

Winning the pardon was a top priority for Israeli officials because Rich had long been a financial and intelligence asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many hostile countries where he did business. 

Conason said that Clinton bent over backwards for the Israelis to try and get them on board for their giant concessions at the Camp David peace process–that of course produced nothing:

Following weeks of preparation by Clinton, the last round of serious peace talks opened in Taba, Egypt, on Jan. 21, 2001, the day after he signed the Rich pardon….

[T]he pardon power exists so that presidents will be free to make such hard choices for reasons of state. As a lame duck, Clinton had no other means to induce his Israeli partner to take any risk for peace.

Myself, I don’t believe that the Israelis really took any risk for peace; my interpretation of these events is that Clinton’s real interest here was backing for his wife from the lobby. As the Times relates:

Moreover, Federal Election Commission records showed that Rich’s ex-wife, songwriter Denise Rich, had donated $201,000 to the Democratic Party in 2000.

Bill Clinton was beloved of the lobby, which helped get him the presidency in the first place. The lobby didn’t like President George H.W. Bush.

“Between 1990 and 1992, George H.W. Bush’s administration had not only conditioned loan guarantees on a settlement freeze, it had backed six U.N. Security Council resolutions criticizing the policies of the Jewish state.” –Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism.

Last month NYT columnist Tom Friedman hit the same theme to an Oxford audience,  saying that Bush’s fatal opposition to Israel was a great political lesson to all his would-be successors.

Let’s go inside American politics for a second. What happened, and as you know, President Bush the first stood outside the White House one day and said I’m one lonely man standing up against the Israel lobby. What happened as a result of that… is that Republicans post Bush I, and manifested most in his son Bush 2, took a strategic decision, they will never be out pro-Israel’d again. That they believe cost them electorally a lot.

Bush famously stood outside the White House complaining of Israel lobbyists in 1991. AIPAC was ticked off. Here’s an excerpt of a secretly-recorded phone call with AIPAC’s then president David Steiner, just before the 1992 election: 

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for what he did September 12th a year ago [1991]? What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington?

In that telephone call– which cost Steiner his job when it was released– he repeatedly praised Bill Clinton as a friend of the Jews and the settlements. The references to loan guarantees below are references to settlements. Bush had tried to make those loan guarantees dependent on Israel stopping settlement activity:
 

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’II tell you, I have friends on the Clinton campaign, close associates. Gore is very committed to us.

[Long Island businessman recording the call] HAIM KATZ: Right. Clinton if he, have you spoken to him?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. I have friends. One of my friends is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler, one of my officer’s daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in that campaign, in the headquarters.

HAIM KATZ: You mean in Little Rock?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In Little Rock, and they’re all going to get big jobs. We have friends AIPAC. I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. Steve Speigel—we’ve got friends—this is my business….

HAIM KATZ: From a practical point of view, if Clinton wins the presidency, and I’m sure he will, I hope so at least, what will be the benefits to Israel better than Bush? …

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. ‘If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’ It’s at the discretion of the president. And that’s why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton’s ear. I talked to Bill Clinton.

HAIM KATZ: And Bill Clinton has made a commitment that if he’s elected . . . ?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He’s going to be very good for us.

HAIM KATZ: And he’ll go ahead with the loan guarantees?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We didn’t talk about that specifically, listen, I didn’t ask him that, but I have full confidence that we’re going to have a much better situation. He’s got Jewish friends. A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. We have never had that with Bush. Susan Thomases, who’s in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She’s in there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country.

HAIM KATZ: So, I mean from a practical point of view. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He’s going to be with us.

HAIM KATZ: …Bush only went ahead with the loan guarantees for one year…

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: They don’t have to give it to us.

HAIM KATZ: But if Clinton is elected. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC:…[I] feel reasonably certain we’re gonna get It.

HAIM KATZ: He’s made that commitment?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, he said he’s going to help us. He’s got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish friends. Bush has no Jewish friends.

My favorite part of that exchange is when Steiner says that he has Martin Indyk. Indyk would go on to many policy positions in the Clinton Administration: special assistant to Clinton on the Middle East, then US ambassador to Israel (even though he was foreign born). And he had worked for AIPAC and AIPAC’s president claimed him. Jeez.

Then Clinton pardons Marc Rich, the financial and intelligence asset of the Israelis in many a hostile country. Notice in the Times obit at the top that Rich gave money for “the absorption of immigrants.” Surely a lot of those immigrants ended up in the occupied territories, as illegal settlers, their presence protested by George Bush, who lost his presidency in part for taking that position, and countenanced by Bill Clinton, whose wife may be running for president soon.

And the lobby continues to be a major player in Democratic politics. Martin Indyk is running the liberal thinktank Brookings, which is funded by Haim Saban, whose greatest political concern is Israel and who gives tons of money to political candidates.

Israeli president Shimon Peres was one of those pressing Clinton for the Rich pardon, and last month, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from an Israeli outfit for a speech on Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the money was donated by a number of contributors to the Peres Academic Center, most prominent among them the Jewish National Fund, which of course helps to Judaize land taken from Palestinians.

It’s really hard to say throughout these tales, where the Israeli interest ends and the American one begins. Does Hillary Clinton know?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

74 Responses

  1. Citizen
    July 11, 2013, 12:24 pm

    Yes, Hillary knows that her career is tied to Israel First politics. You think the guy her daughter picked to marry was a fluke? Chelsea’s father in law is a white collar criminal and Israel Firster. Clinton pardoned another one, a much worse one, the guy who invented the oil “spot market” to get around the rules of the oil game accepted by western nations. He made his moola by playing the loopholes in oil rules designed to support the US and other Western nations. He didn’t care about anything but making himself rich at the expense of the West, and to the benefit of Israel.

    • Krauss
      July 11, 2013, 3:44 pm

      Hillary will likely win in 2016 if she decides to run.

      The 2008 primaries were an abberation in democratic politics. Usually the establishment candidate wins. Obama was just that good of a candidate, he always was – and continue to be – a lot better on the campaign trail than he was/is in the WH.

      Also, Obama in 2007 wasn’t that much of a longshot as people say. Already by 2004 he had a very high profile, there’s no such equivalent figure today in the Democratic party, plus there’s a lot of pressure for the first woman president.

      David Remnick wrote it best, when he reported from Hillary’s schmoozing at the Brookings institute after the election. She cozied up to all the Israel Firsters stuffed with cash, and Remnick summed it up: yes, she’s running.

      Still, you kind of wonder who’s more pleased with Hillary in the White House.
      She, or Bill.

  2. jewishgoyim
    July 11, 2013, 12:27 pm

    “my interpretation of these events is that Clinton’s real interest here was backing for his wife from the lobby.”

    Maybe he was not thinking that long term. Maybe he just thought he’ll make more money on the lecture circuit if he had this constituency securely in his pocket (or a few millions more in his book deals).

    • Rusty Pipes
      July 11, 2013, 12:56 pm

      Bill may like money, but he likes power more. Having money and moving in circles of people who have money are a means to getting back in power.

      • jewishgoyim
        July 11, 2013, 1:17 pm

        I just checked her wikipedia page and discovered she became senator on January 3rd 2001. I did not know her political career was that advanced at the time of the Rich pardon. I thought she was just a former First Lady and that her political career took off later.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 11, 2013, 2:51 pm

        I thought she was just a former First Lady and that her political career took off later.

        my impression was always that the senate seat was a formality to give her political creds to run for prez. her and bill were a team and it was a package deal that he would run first and then her. in this regard she was never just a first lady, they team tagged. i could be wrong.

      • Krauss
        July 11, 2013, 3:46 pm

        You’re not wrong, you’re exactly right.

        Bill even wanted her to run in the 2012 primaries, but she (wisely) knew that it would be a disaster as it would sour the base on her. But if she had won them, she could probably have won the election too.
        Romney was just such a disaster of a candidate.

      • Daniel Rich
        July 12, 2013, 1:00 am

        @ jewishgoyim,

        Follow the money [.xlsx format - excel].

        Scroll down until you see CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM [caps are theirs not mine] and see how much [contribution] money she received between 2002/2006.

      • yonah fredman
        July 12, 2013, 3:51 am

        Krauss- I think you need to give me a source for that one, because otherwise it’s preposterous. Bill Clinton is a great political analyst and running against the first black president in the primaries was not going to be advice he would give to anyone for whom he was rooting.

  3. Annie Robbins
    July 11, 2013, 12:39 pm

    Bush’s fatal opposition to Israel was a great political lesson to all his would-be successors.

    it’s so creepy

  4. Kathleen
    July 11, 2013, 12:59 pm

    Hillary Clinton totally “knows.” Clinton is a war hawk on middle east issues. Promoting Israel’s agenda with Iran etc… persistently. She voted for that bloody Iraq resolution., while Senator Dick Durbin (on the Senate intelligence committee) voted no (should have been a clue). Former IAEA weapons inspector Scorr Ritter during the Clinton administration and others have written abouthttp://www.salon.com/2007/02/26/clinton_aumf/ link to alternet.org about the Clintons knowing there were no WMD’s yet going along Will not lift a finger for her if she runs. Tired of the Clinton’s, their power broking, triangulation. Bill brought us the demise of Glass Steagal. Hillary helped bring on the Iraq invasion..Enough.

    Obama brought us Holder who helped with the pardon of Rich, helped with the dismissal of the Aipac espionage trial etc., no accountability for the banksters. Enough!

    • Chu
      July 11, 2013, 4:01 pm

      Hillary Clinton (2008): “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

      must’ve have gotten a lot of zionists writing fatter checks that day.
      What an exciting wargasmic phrase, and a clear reminder that one will say almost anything for power.

      • Kathleen
        July 12, 2013, 9:00 am

        If Clinton is elected. Next stop Iran. She is a war hawk and will promote Israel’s agenda with Iran.

      • James Canning
        July 12, 2013, 2:14 pm

        @Kathleen – - Hillary was dead wrong on Afghanistan. Helped cause the squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars.

        I think she has little strategic thinking ability, regarding the course of history. Great at promoting an agenda, talking points, etc etc etc.

      • James Canning
        July 12, 2013, 7:09 pm

        Iran will not attack Israel unless Iran is attacked first, by Israel (or the US). Clinton should have been aware of that fact. Maybe she was.

    • Ellen
      July 12, 2013, 4:19 am

      Obama brought us a corrupt AG, Holder, who had deep professional and personal ties to Reid Weingartner, who represented Rich in his bid for a pardon.

      Clinton was paid off to finaly kill Glass Steagal. This, too, is haunting him. (And the economically challenged Obama Administration keeps the arhitects of destruction like Summers around.)

      Meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is effectively driving her cause to bring boring, but safe and effective banking, without getting hyper partisan about it. She and McCain just introduced their bill. It might not fly, but it WILL garner her tons of love and support from the general public. And this may propel her waaaaay beyond Hilary in a run for pres. Warren chose a good battle and she is up to it.

      But if Warren does not promise enough love to Israel now, she will be destroyed.

  5. Kathleen
    July 11, 2013, 1:01 pm

    Bush 41 and Baker were the only ones to ever push for cutting aid to Israel based on their illegal building of settlements.

    • James Canning
      July 11, 2013, 7:00 pm

      And what a total fool was Bush Jr! Thanks partly to incompetence of Condi Rice.

    • Citizen
      July 12, 2013, 4:45 am

      If memory serves, all they did was threaten to cut the guaranteed loans (which always end up as grants)–that was enough to get them on the Israel lobby shit list.

    • Denis
      July 12, 2013, 11:14 am

      Ex-presidents almost always look better the farther down the timeline we get, and I don’t think any example of that is clearer than H.W. — but Truman and Kennedy may be counter-examples. History even seems to be giving Bill a bye on converting the Oval Office into the Oral Office — how the crowds loved him at the last Dem convention.

      Even W is beginning to look like a Ghandi next to Peace Prize laureate Obama. Compare W’s stand on principle in not scrubbing Scooter Libby’s criminal record with Obama’s complete lack of principle on any issue.

      Prediction: Pollard will be Obama’s Mark Rich — the Democrats’ gift to AIPAC. Unlike Bill, Obama can deliver Pollard w/out splashing the poo on Hill.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 12, 2013, 1:37 pm

        “History even seems to be giving Bill a bye on converting the Oval Office into the Oral Office — how the crowds loved him at the last Dem convention.”

        Most people, all but the radical right wingers in control of the GOP, knew that the Clinton sex stuff was a big, fat nothing, ginned up by the conservatives. If history is doing anything it is simply not buying into the GOP lies that the Clinton “scandal” amounted to anything.

      • Denis
        July 14, 2013, 12:36 pm

        Perfect, Woody. A concise appraisal of that debacle by one of the very Clinton apologists I was implicitly referring to.

        Even if, as I suspect, that whole Oral Office event was a set up, it still happened. The DNA made sure that neither WC nor his apologists can deny that. Having happened, it tells us all we need to know about the creep’s morals.

        The problem is that Monica over-shadowed Paula. We tend to forget that at the time Clinton was on the griddle for having the state troopers bring Paula Jones to his room and trying to intimidate her into sex while he was governor. For a man with that much power over a woman’s job to pull a stunt like that, well . . . that was more than sufficient cause for criminal charges. It was attempted rape.

        Don’t know what happened to all the liberal fems over that whole thing. Not a peep out of them. Imagine if it had been Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. Whew!

      • Kathleen
        July 15, 2013, 10:50 am

        President Clinton lies under oath about blowjobs =impeachment
        President Bush and team produce a huge intelligence snow job = hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions of Iraqi’s displaced/no accountability

        Says a great deal about the U.S. congress and their twisted priorities. As well as the U.S. mainstream media.

  6. irmep
    July 11, 2013, 1:01 pm

    There’s no presidential pardon like an Israel presidential pardon. Clinton also pardoned Adolph Schwimmer, convicted smuggler and Iran-Contra operative.

    The Rich pardon communicated to alert Americans that rule of law can be bought and sold by the Israel lobby. If Israel and its US lobby want a president to turn a blind eye, or rectify a “historical injustice” it’s not a matter of “if” but “how much” and “when.”

    Presidential pardon files for Charles Winters that became available recently reveal how broad an effort can be. In this case, it was to wipe the record clean of an already deceased smuggler and again communicate that illegally smuggling US weapons to Jewish fighters in Palestine in the 1940s (which occurred at the margin of many Zionist orgs) was “on the wrong side of the law, but right side of history” as one fawning smuggler obit put it.

    link to irmep.org

    Even if Pollard were released in 2015 and not obtain any sentence reduction, it is still likely that Obama will pardon Pollard his last day in office to “close a painful chapter” in US-Israel history. (The chapter in which the U.S. seriously investigated and even prosecuted Israeli espionage and covert actions in the U.S.).

    • Kathleen
      July 15, 2013, 10:54 am

      If Obama dares to pardon Pollard allegedly CIA agents etc will go ballistic in response to the damage that Pollard’s espionage crimes undermined U.S. national security in astronomical ways. Supposedly the deal Pollard and his legal team made kept much of the damage done unavailable due to classification.

  7. American
    July 11, 2013, 1:09 pm

    DAVID STEINER AIPAC:
    I mean, I have people like that all over the country.>>>>>

    Yea we have seen that.
    I think the Jewish ones at least are referred to in Hebrew as …
    Sayanim – Metapediaen.metapedia.org/wiki/Sayanim‎ CachedJun 4, 2013 – A sayanim (sing. Sayan; Hebrew: helpers, assistants) is a Jew living outside Israel who volunteers to provide assistance to Israel and/or the …
    The non Jewish ones are just referred to as political whores.

    ‘It’s really hard to say throughout these tales, where the Israeli interest ends and the American one begins. Does Hillary Clinton know?’”>>>>

    Not hard for me, there is no American interest in Israeli interest, only ‘politicans interest. And yes Hillary knows.

  8. Stateless American
    July 11, 2013, 1:26 pm

    The Marc Rich pardon got all the publicity, but Clinton also pardoned former CIA director John Deutch, a friend of Israel who kept classified information on his unsecured computer. Following the pardon Sen. Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said, “Deutch essentially walked away from what is one of the most egregious cases of mishandling of classified information that I have ever seen, short of espionage.”

  9. James Canning
    July 11, 2013, 1:32 pm

    Mehdi Hasan has good piece in The New Statesman, regarding wrecking of two-state solution due to stupidity on part of George W. Bush. (And Condoleezza Rice, of course.)

    • Annie Robbins
      July 11, 2013, 2:42 pm

      james, could you link please, or are you unable to source for some reason?

      • ckg
        July 11, 2013, 3:04 pm

        Perhaps it is this article cross-posted at The New Statesman and Huffington Post

      • tree
        July 11, 2013, 4:11 pm

        looks like its here:

        link to newstatesman.com

      • James Canning
        July 11, 2013, 7:03 pm

        I’ll see what I can find, Annie. I am sure it happened.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 11, 2013, 7:41 pm

        thanks everyone. i was feeling lazy! good article.

      • James Canning
        July 12, 2013, 2:09 pm

        Annie — A fine account of the effort to arrest Marc Rich appeared in Vanity Fair magazine in June 2001. (It may not not mention the incident I referred to.)

        Scooter Libby was paid $2 million by Marc Rich. Before he went to work for Dick Cheney to set up idiotic invasion of Iraq.

  10. James Canning
    July 11, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Didn’t Marc Rich have a mole inside the FBI? Rich nearly was captured in Spain, but a warning while he was in mid-flight saved him. Mossad.

  11. James Canning
    July 11, 2013, 1:40 pm

    George H. W. Bush correctly viewed the illegal colonies in the West Bank as threats to thae national security interests of the American people.

    Bill Clinton allowed a grotesque proliferation of those illegal colonies in the West Bank.

  12. Chu
    July 11, 2013, 2:21 pm

    It’s great to see this evidence of them conspiring. Can the usual trolls defend this evidence? It’s worth reading the entire transcript of their conversation from the link.

    ——————————————————————————————————–
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We’ll have to get you involved. I like you, we have a lot to talk about, about real estate, you know, I have so many great activities going on at AIPAC, you ought to think about coming to some of these things. I’ll have a dinner this fall. I’ll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy’s house last month kosher dinner. I brought foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore’s house.
    HAIM KATZ: Right.
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Reagan had something . . . meshuga, but at least he had a commitment. He knew Jews from the film industry, he was one of the best guys for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn’t have it. That’s what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in. Bush is, there’s a man with no principles. Absolutely no principles.
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    HAIM KATZ: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?

    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We’re talking now. We don’t have no commitments yet. We’re just negotiating. We’re more interested right now, in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.

  13. eljay
    July 11, 2013, 3:26 pm

    Reagan had something . . . meshuga, but at least he had a commitment. He knew Jews from the film industry, he was one of the best guys for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn’t have it. That’s what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in. Bush is, there’s a man with no principles. Absolutely no principles.

    Zio-supremacist morality in a nutshell: Unless you believe in and support the right of Jews to terrorize, steal, colonize, oppress, hate and kill, you have no principles.

    • Citizen
      July 12, 2013, 4:58 am

      That is the Zionist principle itself, inherently double standard, two classes of humans, one primary, the other secondary.

  14. just
    July 11, 2013, 3:50 pm

    Grotesque. This is not OK.

    For heaven’s sake, can any elected/appointed/chosen American ever put America or justice or peace FIRST? It’s a deal-breaker for me, and the mounting frustration is nearly unbearable. The Palestinians (and other folks that are treated so savagely) remain my inspiration. They need for us to advocate for them and to hold our policy makers accountable.

    ‘primum non nocere– first, do no harm.’

    • RoHa
      July 11, 2013, 9:58 pm

      “He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn’t have it. That’s what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in.”

      Not for Americans, but for the Jews. That’s what counts.

      • Hostage
        July 12, 2013, 2:11 am

        Not for Americans, but for the Jews. That’s what counts.

        Correction: Not for Jews, for Israelis.

        The federal government can’t even agree to continue funding food stamps for the Jews and other Americans living below the poverty line in this country. But those same lawmakers have granted generous funding increases for Israel.

      • Citizen
        July 12, 2013, 5:10 am

        @ Hostage
        Yes, it’s disgusting. I don’t know anybody in my daily realm that has picked up on this, and food stamps is only one of many things on the chopping block, and many cuts have already been made in the American safety net. When cuts to foreign aid is brought up as an issue, the pundit always demeans the issue because foreign aid is “a drop in the bucket.” I’ve never heard anybody on TV news/political infotainment shows ever mention that 20% of ALL US foreign aid goes to just two countries, and we all know which two and what the formula is. Even now with all the talk about cutting off aid to Egypt, nobody in the political opinion/debate shows spells out that formula and its source.

      • RoHa
        July 12, 2013, 6:02 am

        I don’t see any mention of Israelis.

      • flyod
        July 12, 2013, 7:51 am

        perhaps for american jews that love israel while avoiding their tax dollars going to the u.s.

        link to oneisraelfund.org

      • Hostage
        July 12, 2013, 8:35 pm

        I don’t see any mention of Israelis.

        The “I” in APAIC doesn’t stand for Iowa.

      • RoHa
        July 12, 2013, 9:33 pm

        “The “I” in APAIC doesn’t stand for Iowa.”

        Of course not. It’s for Idaho. But none of the quoted dialogue between Steiner and Katz uses the word “Israelis”.

      • ritzl
        July 12, 2013, 10:53 pm

        @Citizen If you can bear to watch it, here’s a link to a PBS Moyers/Frontline piece following two families trying to make ends meet from over the last 15 years. Homes lost, divorces, strings of minimum wage jobs w/o benes. It is absolutely as heartbreaking as it is common. The disintegration, intentional disintegration in my view, of the US lower middle class is going to result in some serious political changes in the near term, though if, and only if, a champion for that cause stands up, and stays standing up.

        link to pbs.org

        So introduce the $5B aid to Israel (and Egypt at Israel’s behest) “drop in the bucket” argument/match into that tinder mix and something is going to happen.

        I agree with you though, that the real people (US Joe and Jane) struggling in the piece don’t have time to decipher what macro politics means in their daily lives. So I don’t know what it will take to ignite, let alone channel that inevitable change. But it is very very very dry tinder.

      • ritzl
        July 12, 2013, 11:36 pm

        To be honest, I should say that $5B is only $70 per US household. So in that sense, it is only a “drop in the bucket.”

        But that’s so not the point. What is the point is the political will to do what’s right for the people in Moyers’ piece. Focus on the dislocations. Fund green energy (not that we develop much of that tech in the US, but there are some, e.g. link to technologyreview.com ). Do something specific and politically laudable/votable.

        In aggregate numbers, it IS only a drop in the bucket, but with purpose it becomes a real source of a future for so many.

      • ritzl
        July 12, 2013, 11:50 pm

        And sorry for the multiple posts but the “drop in the bucket” argument is its own contradiction. That $50 per US household means little in terms of its stress on those households, but ho boy does it mean a lot for its recipients.

        Make it mean a lot at home, pols. Or explain why not in Town Hall meetings (which of course means someone will have to ask the questions).

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2013, 8:02 pm

        Of course not. It’s for Idaho. But none of the quoted dialogue between Steiner and Katz uses the word “Israelis”.

        Israel is the raison d’être of AIPAC. Like all Zionist fucktards, AIPAC uses “the Jews” and “Israel” as synonyms and conflates the two concepts at every opportunity.

      • RoHa
        July 14, 2013, 9:34 pm

        “AIPAC uses “the Jews” and “Israel” as synonyms and conflates the two concepts at every opportunity.”

        If they conflate the two concepts, then we can’t say they are talking about the one rather than the other. But either way, it seems that they don’t think of themselves as part of the USA or part of humanity.

      • American
        July 12, 2013, 2:33 pm

        says:
        July 11, 2013 at 9:58 pm

        “He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn’t have it. That’s what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in.”>>>>>

        I doubt that most gentle politicians have any special feelings for Jews.
        I think it’s 99% the money…..they know that Jews, like other special interest ‘will pay” for special favors.
        Take for example the Mainline churches letter to congress on ‘conditioning aid to Israel—-I seriously doubt there were fat campaign checks sent to politicans to induce them to get behind the Church demand.
        If something like that had been to benefit Jews or Israel or other special interest politicans could rest assure that campaign donations would be forth coming in return.
        Your average American hasnt quite gotten use to having to ‘pay for every ‘single thing’ they request of the government ..they are still stuck in the just supporting one party vr another…..although they are coming to accept thats the way it is now.

      • James Canning
        July 14, 2013, 1:51 pm

        But consider the high degree of intermarriage at highest levels in US. Bill Clinton’s only child married a Jew. One of two children of George W. Bush married a Jew. One of Al Gore’s children married a Jew. Etc etc etc. This is a good thing, in my view, provided children have freedom of choice as to religion.

      • American
        July 15, 2013, 6:00 pm

        James Canning says:
        July 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm

        But consider the high degree of intermarriage at highest levels in US.
        Bill Clinton’s only child married a Jew. ‘>>>>

        Well I am far more cynical than you about the intermarrages when it comes to the highest (political) levels. I think it has more to do with intermarriage within a ‘select set’ than with any special feelings for one or the others enthic group. Allowing for ‘true love’ also in intermarriage I doubt it depends on the other person’s religion, ethnic.

      • James Canning
        July 15, 2013, 6:49 pm

        People tend to marry someone who “runs in the same crowd”. The religious angle would have posed a problem much more often, a generation or two ago.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 12, 2013, 9:00 am

      “For heaven’s sake, can any elected/appointed/chosen American ever put America or justice or peace FIRST?”

      Nope. They listen to the puppet masters in AIPAC and similar groups, because they grease the wheel that gets these people into power.

  15. Citizen
    July 11, 2013, 5:00 pm

    The US PTB and Scooter Libby, Marc Rich, and POTUS.

    link to isteve.blogspot.com

    Dick and Jane don’t stand chance. The US is an old Tarzan movie, the Zionist Jews raking in the profits while Dick & Jane gobble cheap popcorn at outrageous price.

  16. ToivoS
    July 11, 2013, 6:34 pm

    St. Clair at counterpunch has a long article on the role Hilary played in the Marc Rich pardon. link to counterpunch.org

    • Ellen
      July 12, 2013, 4:47 am

      That is an excellent read. But note that the GOP never touches this kryptonite when looking for partisan ammunition against the Clinton machine.

      • James Canning
        July 12, 2013, 1:40 pm

        @Ellen – - It is interesting to recall that in the late 1990s, when Hillary Clinton was trying to position herself to take over Pat Moynihan’s NY Seante seat, she was told she was not in good favor with “the Jews”.

  17. chris o
    July 11, 2013, 10:03 pm

    I can’t believe I never heard of this phone call. I am really glad the Marc Rich connection led you to think of this and post it. Very interesting.

  18. CloakAndDagger
    July 12, 2013, 1:08 am

    It doesn’t get more blatant than this. Can we say “treason” now?
    Tar and feather, anyone?

    Much as I would like to see a woman president, in the hope that we would see less testosterone-driven foreign policies (ha!), I now have 3 names of women in politics that I would never support for the role:

    1. Michelle Bachmann
    2. Sarah Palin
    3. Hillary Clinton

    and, should they ever deign to vie for the position – hard-core Israel-firsters all:

    1. Jane Hartman
    2. Dianne Feinstein
    3. Barbara Boxer
    4. Debbie Schultz
    5. Ileana Ross-Lehtinen

    I bet if I thought hard enough, I could come up with a few more names.

  19. Kathleen
    July 12, 2013, 9:51 am

    Phil/Mondo folks anyone else noticing that NPR’s stories about Israel (often feel good) or stories about Israel’s stated enemies increasing even more? This morning these two one right after the other.
    Israel’s internal battle/Emily Harris
    link to npr.org

    In Southern Syria/Deborah Amos
    link to npr.org

    This story is all about being pro Syrian rebel. They need US arms etc. Take a listen

    • James Canning
      July 12, 2013, 1:37 pm

      Good work, Kathleen.

      BTW, Qatar was providing some weapons to Syrian insurgents that the US did not want delivered to them.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 12, 2013, 1:39 pm

      I haven’t listen to NPR in a long time, but it wouldn’t surprise me. It is the radio arm of AIPAC-central.

    • irmep
      July 12, 2013, 10:06 pm

      Why no, Kathleen. It’s just you….whoops, feel good story alert.

      Sphinx in Israel story.
      link to npr.org

    • American
      July 12, 2013, 11:14 pm

      @ kathleen

      If you want to see a story about Israel’s enemies take a look at this article I saw over at friendfeed.. I wondered if it was part of that announced ‘new campaign to ‘defend Israel. It will probably be on NPR next.

      link to honestreporting.com

      The Untold Truth: 150 Million Europeans Hate Israel
      July 1, 2013 14:37 by Simon Plosker

      In a thought-provoking new book, Demonizing Israel and the Jews, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, a board member of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, posits that today, well over 150 million Europeans believe that Israel is exterminating the Palestinians. This current widespread demonic view of Israel is a new mutation of the diabolical beliefs about Jews which many held in the Middle Ages, and those promoted more recently by the Nazis and their allies.
      This collection of 57 interviews with scholars, politicians, and the like, including HonestReporting’s Managing Editor Simon Plosker, depicts how extensive and intense the hate-mongering is.
      In an exclusive two-part interview to coincide with the publication of his book (available for purchase on Amazon), we asked Manfred Gerstenfeld about the important issues raised and why its conclusions appear to have been swept under the carpet by the mainstream media.

      HR: In your new book Demonizing Israel and the Jews, you state that more than 150 million adult citizens of the European Union hold a demonic view of Israel and that this resembles the diabolical view many people in the Middle Ages had of Jews. What do you mean by that?
      MG: The core element of anti-Semitism for almost two millennia has been that Jews represent “absolute evil.” The notion what absolute evil is, has changed over the centuries. Many Christians falsely claimed that the Jews had killed God’s alleged son – the worst thing imaginable in their minds. For the Nazis, absolute evil was if people were sub-human, vermin, bacteria and so on in their eyes. After the Holocaust, the worst thing possible now is to commit genocide, or to behave like the Nazis did.
      HR: What is your book’s statement that more than 150 million EU citizens have a demonic view of Israel based upon?
      MG: Various studies asked respondents whether they agree with statements such as, “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” or “Israel behaves toward the Palestinians like the Nazis did toward the Jews.” Studies in seven E.U. countries confirm that about 40% or more people there hold such demonic views. Similar studies confirm this for the non-E.U. countries Norway and Switzerland. Several other studies also show strongly negative views of E.U. citizens about Israel.
      HR: Most of these studies are not new. Why weren’t they given prominence much earlier?

      con’t……..

      Read Part 2 of this exclusive interview

      …..yea do read part 2, it gets even crazier. Suggesting that leading EU and national politicians have to be removed and various political parties destroyed or there will be another holocaust.

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2013, 7:10 am

        @ American
        The Plosker interview and its scope stunned me. Nothing would make this guy happy except the whole world closing its eyes to what the Jewish Establishment in the diaspora (indirectly) and Israel (directly) have been doing to the Palestinians all these many decades, decade after decade. And nothing about how AIPAC et all basically control sole-superpower America’s foreign policy in the key ME region of the globe, thereby changing the world’s formerly good opinion of America, and dragging down its soft power. Self-hating Jews are equated with holocaust deniers, or are dupes of the latter. Criticism of Israel’s policies and conduct is equated with medieval blood libel, and with Nazi POV. I guess it’s only ok to demonize Iran and Muslims, and–anybody who “picks on Jews and poor little Israel.”

        It also reminds me of the Jewish historians who never put in historical context the old pogroms, as if they simply sprang from the head of a born Jew-Hating Zeus, and nothing ever to do with the socio-economic role of the Jewish middleman operating between the lazy Gentile elite and the oppressed serfs and peasants.

      • American
        July 13, 2013, 2:36 pm

        Citizen says:
        July 13, 2013 at 7:10 am

        @ American
        The Plosker interview and its scope stunned me.>>>>>

        The scope of his claims and ‘suggestions was stunning. Way beyond defending Israel. Good example of what I’ve seen in some others like him
        who have a burning hatred of the non jewish world , particularly Europe who they collectively blame for the holocaust.
        If anti Israel is a cover for anti semitism for some, then it’s equally clear that the pro Isr, anti- anti semitism crusades of guys like this is just a cover for their own hatred of non Jews.

      • Hostage
        July 13, 2013, 3:07 pm

        In a thought-provoking new book, Demonizing Israel and the Jews, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, a board member of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, posits that today, well over 150 million Europeans believe that Israel is exterminating the Palestinians.

        In defense of the Europeans first impressions are not always wrong.

        On many occasions we’ve discussed the fact that the Israeli government has chosen to ignore a host of official warnings from treaty monitoring bodies and medical professionals that their closure and blockade of Gaza have destroyed the social safety net and is causing malnutrition rates of 10-20 percent in some areas. They are deliberately and slowing starving people and causing permanent developmental disabilities and stunted growth in children that will inevitable result in premature deaths.

        It’s a crime to use hunger or starvation as methods of warfare against a civilian population, regardless of what Dore Gold, Manfred Gerstenfeld, and the JCPA try to say to the contrary.

  20. American
    July 12, 2013, 2:40 pm

    A long time ago read about a similar phone call between some zio or lobby operative and a US Jew …..according to the story the US Jew approached turned the contents of the conversation over some US agency because according to him what was suggested was anti Amercian and would rebound on Jews.
    Does anyone remember this article and the name of the Jewish guy?

  21. NoMoreIsrael
    July 13, 2013, 6:50 pm

    I will write in Dzokhar Tsarnaev for President before I vote for Hillary Clinton. She’ll be utterly God awful. I predict a war with Iran within 6 months if that loon takes office. Somehow, I find the prospect of her in the White House even more bone chilling than W.

Leave a Reply