Adelson says Obama should fire ‘atomic weapon’ at Iran, not negotiate

Israel/Palestine
on 107 Comments

Last night in New York, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire supporter of Israel, said that the U.S. should fire a nuclear weapon at Iran rather than negotiate. He said that if Obama fires a weapon into the desert, killing no one, and then threatens to send the next one to Tehran so that Iran is “wiped out,” Iran will cease its nuclear program.

What are we going to negotiate about? I would say ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ …You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ And so there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever. Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all,  and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.’

The recommendations were met with applause by a Yeshiva University audience.

Adelson, an 80-year-old casino mogul and major supporter of Mitt Romney and other Republican political candidates, made the comments in a dialogue with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach during a conversation called “Will Jews Exist? Iran, Assimilation and the Threat to Israel and Jewish Survival.”

The video I took at Yeshiva University, above, records the exchange. Adelson is in the foreground with his back to the camera. Boteach, a rightwing political figure close to US ambassador Samantha Power and NJ Senator-elect Cory Booker, is on his right. Neither Boteach nor the others on the panel– Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens and Yeshiva University president Richard Joel — objected to Adelson’s idea.

Adelson owns homes in the U.S. and Israel, where he is also a newspaper publisher. The dialogue began when Boteach, who calls himself “America’s rabbi,” says that Adelson believes that Franklin Roosevelt could have prevented the Holocaust. Adelson says:

“He could have prevented the Holocaust… Yes– if not prevented the Holocaust, he could have at least significantly reduced the severity of it.”

Adelson said that Roosevelt could have convinced the British that it was “more important to them and to their future” not to sign the White Paper on Palestine in 1939 that limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. FDR had “unlimited leverage” because he could promise the British that the U.S. would enter World War II once the country ceased to be isolationist.

“He really had the leverage, he really had the upper hand,” Adelson said– something he realizes from being in business 68 years.

“Given your strong feelings about what the U.S. did not do to prevent the Holocaust,” Boteach asks, what are your feelings about “Obama speaking to Iran right now” and having diplomatic relations with Iran, given its threats against Israel? Not as a political person, the rabbi says, but as a prominent American.

Adelson:

The worst negotiating tactic I could ever imagine, my entire life.

[Boteach: Why is that?]

Because you can’t get anything. He’s not saying to them, Roll back your entire program and show that you’re willing to be peaceful. So, roll it all back… and we’ll roll back the sanctions…. What is that, a game of chicken, who’s going to blink first?

“It’s very simple, it’s the same thing with the Palestinians,” Adelson continues. “Sixty-five years, they haven’t taken one millimeter step toward the Israelis, to accommodate the needs of the Israelis but more importantly, to show that they truly want peace.”

Adelson moves from Palestine to Iran:

If they truly want peace, it’s very simple to say to all their henchmen, lay off the terrorism for five years. And they’ll come to the Jews and say, for five or ten years there will be no terrorism, there will be no violence or no incitement against– We’ll throw out the books that teach the three-year-old children that Jews are descended from swine and apes, and that we’re not going to teach anymore in the curriculum to kill the Jews, that the Jews are very bad people.

So if you really want peace, it’s very simple to send a message to your opposition. Just be peaceful. Open up all the things.

Or– ‘We’ll give you this if you give us something.’ I think it’s the worst negotiating ploy, tactic anybody can imagine.

[Boteach: So you would support negotiations with Iran so long as they first cease all enrichment]

No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ You pick up your cell phone, even at traveling rates. You pick up your cell phone, and– what are they called– [Boteach: roaming charges] Roaming charges. You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ So there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.

And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. [Applause] You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.’

A tremendous demonstration of American strength? Boteach asks.

The only thing they understand.

So you see the current negotiations as a demonstration of weakness?

Absolutely.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

107 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    October 23, 2013, 9:06 am

    Adelson’s stand will not get much national notice, but whatever notice it gets will be to the good — showing the arch-Zionist willing to use Nukes (indeed, to use USA’s nukes and involve USA in nuclear war) in the service of Israel. this should help wavering (mostly young) Jews to abandon support for Israel which shows itself not merely a local expansivist-warlord but also a power willing to take USA down the wrong path. Again.

    • seafoid
      October 23, 2013, 2:03 pm

      Netanyahu in Rome for a 7 hour discussion on procrastination with Kerry is asked about what he is going to do to move the peace process parrot forward and he spends his whole answer talking about Iran.

      Unfortunately seems to be subscription only on Haaretz

      link to haaretz.com

      So the Palestinians will not get any thing until first Iran, then Saudi, then Bahrain YADA YADA I

    • Susie Kneedler
      October 24, 2013, 10:44 pm

      Hooray, a bit of corporate airtime. Tonight, in a segment called “Sheldon Strangelove,” Chris Hayes played Phil’s video–though unfortunately without attribution–of Sheldon Adelson advocating that the U.S. lob nuclear bombs at Iran. Hayes points out [approx.] that a “first-strike” atomic attack is a “war crime” of “epic,” “historic,” proportions,” that would–because of the “population density of Iran”–”kill a whole lot of humans.”

      Hayes laments the danger Adelson’s “rantings” pose because they’re not from just any “crank,” or even from a mere mega-donor to “conservative” causes, but because they’re from a powerful influence on “mainstream Jewish organizations.” Hayes singles out Adelson’s contributions to “Birthright,” which, he reminds us, sends “young adults to Israel,” a journey that has become “a rite of passage.” Hayes adds, “And that is what’s so scary about Sheldon Adelson: he’s an influential donor getting applause at Yeshiva University” for advocating a first-strike nuclear attack, for pushing the “fantasy” that “peace comes from” “domination,” “bullying.” Hayes compares how viewers would react if an “Iranian mullah” threatened such aggression, then speculates that viewers might justly ask, “Do these [Iranian] people want peace?” Hayes concludes, “The answer,” if it is about “Sheldon Adelson,” is ‘No.’”

      [Approx. quotations: the video's not up yet at "All In" on MSNBC.] [Apologies, as well, because I also posted this news on the thread here: link to mondoweiss.net

  2. Justpassingby
    October 23, 2013, 9:15 am

    Wow this is ugly.

    A jew urging genocide of iranians in a jewish/israeli campus and in front of a jewish crowd and gets applauded?

    Are these the type of crowd that wonder why there is antisemitism?

    Great coverage Phil, this should be on MSM!

  3. justicewillprevail
    October 23, 2013, 9:33 am

    If you ever wanted evidence that certifiable lunatics populate the Israel lobby, and are applauded for their insane Dr Strangelove scenarios, then here you have it. What part of the Iranian ‘desert’ are you planning to drop a nuclear bomb on which won’t have catastrophic consequences for the entire region? His schoolboy views of the world and how to deal with it would be treated with the derision they deserve had they not found a home with equally lunatic Israeli right wing crackpots, and of course come attached with millions of dollars of funding for their hellbent on destruction plans.

  4. Citizen
    October 23, 2013, 9:35 am

    So the great American patriot and very key donor and union defender to the GOP, Sheldon Adelson, recommends his America wipe Iran off the map.

    • Nevada Ned
      October 23, 2013, 9:49 am

      Adelson is not a “union defender”. He hates unions.

      • Citizen
        October 23, 2013, 4:36 pm

        @ Nevada Ned
        Exactly; and he’s also not a great American patriot, but rather, a self-proclaimed patriot of Israel (who just happens to live in USA).

  5. Nevada Ned
    October 23, 2013, 9:48 am

    The Sheldon Adelsons of the world are always screaming “This is Munich!” Adelson doesn’t ever think how much like Munich it must look to the other side. The Iranians undoubtedly think that if they ever give in to US nuclear blackmail, the US will come back and ask again for more capitulations.

    Oh, and by the way, a US nuclear bomb on Tehran will wipe out the Iranian Jewish minority, which is the largest group of Jews in the middle east outside of Israel. The headline ought to be:

    ADELSON WANTS NUCLEAR WAR
    KILLING IRANIAN MOSLEMS AND JEWS

  6. flyod
    October 23, 2013, 10:15 am

    of course it’s always Iran that “wants to wipe Israel off the map”….if my MEMRI serves me correct…

  7. Walid
    October 23, 2013, 10:21 am

    The guy’s a rich vulgar thug that talks in the vocabulary of the mob.

    • seafoid
      October 23, 2013, 10:52 am

      I think he has become more bellicose since he started on the Viagra, Walid. It is probably linked.

    • Philip Weiss
      October 23, 2013, 11:19 am

      Thanks for that insight, Walid. Other videos I post of him I think will bear out his very streetwise speech that is not especially thoughtful. For instance, he said he had no idea of the difference between Shi’a and Sunni.

      • Justpassingby
        October 23, 2013, 12:14 pm

        You should make the video available for all on youtube so more people could see this.

    • Citizen
      October 23, 2013, 4:53 pm

      In the video clip, he frames his approach consistently in terms of negotiations, each time proclaiming his negotiation expertise as a businessman, but when a question is asked to him about Iran, framed to elicit his negotiation approach in that matter, he flatly asserts Iran is not a matter to approach via negotiation, but a simpler matter of sheer threatened force, using America’s nuclear weapons. Straight thug talk. He recommends Obama whip out a huge gun, fire at the lizards and snakes in the sand, and then put the gun to Iran’s head.

    • Bandolero
      October 23, 2013, 9:22 pm

      Sheldon Adelson behaves pretty much as a godfather of the mafia. Considering that Netanyahu seems to me being of of his capos, I see now a situation where the mafia got hold on a vast array of nuclear weapons and the godfather of the mafia is openly advocating to use nukes in acts of nuclear terrorism.

  8. Krauss
    October 23, 2013, 10:39 am

    The outrage here is not his well-known idiocy and famous disloyalty towards the U.S. in favor of Israel(his wife is an even bigger Israel Firster, which this site has previously coveraged).

    The outrage is that this man is given a platform simply because of his wealth and is able to channel hundreds of millions against the sitting president, the cabinet and the military and intelligence establishment in favour of another government which wants to spill American treasure and blood to advance it’s own objective of hegemony.

    The Israel vs Iran conflict is just a power game, nothing else. Obama knows this and in his 2nd term, he will put the screws to Adelson and other 5th columns, and he’s already doing it.
    Hence the panic.

  9. seafoid
    October 23, 2013, 10:50 am

    Carpet bomb Adelsons casinos in Vegas and Macau in reprisal. The Shia have as much right as the bots do to have strategic weapons.

    • piotr
      October 23, 2013, 6:48 pm

      The Chinese could just confiscate the casinos, that would have no victims and still “deliver the message”. A major objection to your proposal is that it is not a good argument against inane bellicose proposal to make unannotated proposals of your own (yours could be merely snark, but so could be Adelson’s).

    • traintosiberia
      October 23, 2013, 7:38 pm

      was he banned from Las Vegas for a while? He has succeessfully destroyed the right of the labor in the gambling industry.( isn’t gambling banned in Judaism ?)

  10. amigo
    October 23, 2013, 11:04 am

    Would this apparent early onset of Alzheimer,s disease please hurry up and get this crazy bastard off the street.

  11. Woody Tanaka
    October 23, 2013, 11:13 am

    This is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. A terroristic, lying, blood-thirsty, vile bigot. The very picture of the average zio.

  12. David Doppler
    October 23, 2013, 11:18 am

    But this is interesting as insight into how Netanyahu – whose ear Adelson has bought and paid for – might go it alone. “We just declare that the UN Red line – 90% – is crossed, the US has ignored our demands, prefers to be weak, so here’s the deal, Iran, see that desert out there? . . . .”

    What holds them back? Some glimmer of sanity, decency, respect for international law, recognition that pre-emptive nuclear attack is going to be hard to hasbara away? Not wanting to finally admit that they have a nuclear arsenal?

    The crowd applauds them. They’ve gone from the stage of secretly imagining this crime, but keeping it to themselves, to inciting appreciative crowds with it. Are the youth in the Tel Aviv taverns standing up to sing, “Tomorrow belongs to me . . . . ”

    Tough love from the global community of intellectual, economic, diplomatic, military and intelligence adult supervisors is the only hope. Plus maybe some brave young congressperson or prosecutor willing to take on these criminals mercilessly, to hold them accountable for whatever crimes they’ve committed already (Adelson and Macau bribery, Boteach and his young nephew Ephraim Diverolli’s illegal arms dealing fueled by a $300M Pentagon contract “investigated” [not] by Harry Waxman. Take some risk that the tide is changing in terms of what happens when people publicly condemn Zionist zealots for their criminal excesses. [and thank you Phil for publishing the other day Albert Einstein's letter doing so 70 years ago. Perhaps an inspiration to someone today?]

  13. eljay
    October 23, 2013, 11:19 am

    “It’s very simple, it’s the same thing with the Palestinians,” Adelson continues. “Sixty-five years, they haven’t taken one millimeter step toward the Israelis, to accommodate the needs of the Israelis but more importantly, to show that they truly want peace.”

    The “needs of the Israelis” appear to include:
    – land and colonies outside of Israel’s / Partition borders;
    – the existence of Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”;
    – absolution of Israel’s obligations under international law;
    – absolution of Israel’s accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes; and
    – excusing Israel from entering into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

    Palestinians should not be expected or required to accomodate these “needs”.

    What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ … You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ So there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.

    And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out*? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

    I wonder if Adelson would accept similar belligerent action against Israel: Nuke a couple of rattlesnakes or scorpions or whatever in the Negev and then say “See? We mean business! The next one is in the middle of Tel Aviv. You want to be wiped out*? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder!”

    Probably not. Hypocrite.

    (*Threatening to “wipe out” a nation is acceptable. Threatening (allegedly or in fact) to “wipe [a nation] off the map”, however, is existential threat, anti-Semitic and – for good measure – Holocaust. Interesting.)

    • lysias
      October 23, 2013, 5:56 pm

      Just threatening war, never mind threatening the use of nuclear weapons, is a war crime, in violation of the UN Charter.

  14. Chu
    October 23, 2013, 11:26 am

    This guy is a quack – indirectly blaming FDR for the holocaust. This guy only could say this to a supportive audience, never on main street USA.

    I listened to the four minutes and had enough. I can’t believe there are so many fifth columnists that we live right next to in the US. It’s ludicrous that this congregation sits there and laps up this revisionist story of american isolationism.

    Money buys the Yes Men. Corey Booker and Shmuely are prime examples of this, even if they are part of the racket. The voters in NJ got a raw deal with their new senator. He sits there and say nothing in defense of FDR because why???

    • Walid
      October 23, 2013, 1:54 pm

      “This guy is a quack – indirectly blaming FDR for the holocaust. ”

      He’s not totally wrong on that point, Chu, if you account for the Evian Conference of several countries that FDR called up to discuss saving the Jews that Hitler was willing to allow to leave in exchange for some badly needed cash. FDR sent a low-level rep to represent the US at the conference and all those other nations represented including the US refused to take in Jews with exception to the Dominican Republic that offered to take in Jews provided they were doctors and in good health. FDR’s and the West’s total abandonment of the Jews in their hour of need signaled to Hitler that he was free to do with them as he pleased. And the sob did, so you could say that FDR’s refusal to save the Jews may have had something to do with it. The US subsequently used the alibi of wanting to protect US employment from a massive influx of Jewish manpower as its reason for not having saved the Jews from Hitler. But this incident of American irresponsability towards the Jews that has been swept under the rug is never discussed anywhere; maybe this is why the US is so lenient on Israel’s flagrant crimes

      • Ecru
        October 23, 2013, 2:01 pm

        @ Walid

        Yes the nations of the world turned away from the Jews but to say that makes them even partly complicit in the Holocaust is I think stretching things a bit. Did any of them have even the slightest, vaguest idea of what Hitler would do to the Jews they turned away?

      • MHughes976
        October 23, 2013, 4:13 pm

        Well, many people at the time reckoned that the Evian Conference had been a success, had secured German permission for capital as well as people to be released, and would solve the problem over a number of years. The outbreak of war was not part of the plan. Of course everything got snarled up in bureaucratic procedures and in reluctance of many countries to admit many immigrants when there was so much unemployment and continuing impact of the Depression.
        The Dominican offer had no noble motivation but was not as restricted as Walid says, as far as I can see. 100,00o visas were offered and would have gone a long way to solve the problem. Only about 5,000 were taken up but these were, it is often said, helpful in escaping Hitler even if their possessors had no intention of working with mules in Sosua, the Dominican Jewish colony. The dictator Trujillo wanted European Jews because he thought they would intermarry and ‘whiten’ the Dominican population. What Jews were to Hitler Haitian black people were to him.
        In the meantime the UK accepted the Kindertransport scheme. Most people of my age know someone who benefited from that. Freud’s contemporary praise of British ‘magnanimity’ may be rather excessive but it isn’t completely beside the point.
        I don’t think it’s quite true that everyone ‘turned away’ or cared nothing at all.

      • Citizen
        October 23, 2013, 5:11 pm

        Maybe FDR was tepid in his response to the Brit White Paper because he thought allowing so many European Jews to pour onto the Mandate land would’ve turned the locals against the Allies?

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 4:29 am

        “…but to say that makes them even partly complicit in the Holocaust is I think stretching things a bit. ”

        Ecru, I latched on the word “indirectly”. Having refused to take in Jews most probably encouraged the other 28 convened countries to do likewise that made of it a “coalition of the unwilling”, which sent a clear signal to Hitler that they didn’t care what would happen to the Jews, and it was this point I was raising.

        Someone upthread or downthread here said something about the unemployment situation in the US and Europe; if that was the stumbling block, why the heck did FDR call up the conference in the first place? The survival of the Jews of Europe was not one of several items on the conference’s agenda; it was THE agenda!

        In spite of the pogroms that continued after the Evian of 1938, the Wagner-Rogers bill, to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Did those Jewish children under the age of 14 present a risk of adding to the unemployment situation in the US?

        The US swept that one under the rug and the Zionists compounded the sin by sitting on it. Nobody wants to talk about it.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 4:45 am

        “Maybe FDR was tepid in his response to the Brit White Paper because he thought allowing so many European Jews to pour onto the Mandate land would’ve turned the locals against the Allies?”

        Citizen, this is highly probable in light of the information that was eventually uncovered about the Zionist collusion with both the good guys and the bad guys to direct emigration to either Palestine or to nowhere, which we all too-sadly learned what that meant. For all we know, maybe this wholesale rejection of helping the Jews escape to the West was part of this conspiracy. Either way, it does not put the US or any of its partners in a nicer light. Either way, the Jews were the losers.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 5:05 am

        “The Dominican offer had no noble motivation but was not as restricted as Walid says, as far as I can see. 100,00o visas were offered and would have gone a long way to solve the problem. Only about 5,000 were taken up but these were, it is often said, helpful in escaping Hitler even if their possessors had no intention of working with mules in Sosua, the Dominican Jewish colony. ”

        MHughes, only 1000 made it to the Dominican Republic; I can’t imagine 99,000 other Jews refusing life in the Caribbean for assured death at the hands of the Nazis. The seemingly charitable offer by Trujillo came at the heels of his massacre of 15,000 Haitian refugees and he needed some Europeans to whiten his image and his population that was being overtaken by those of the wrong colour from the other side of the big island. FDR actually encouraged him to take in the Jews to also whiten his own image that was tarnished by the Evian fiasco.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 23, 2013, 3:32 pm

        “He’s not totally wrong on that point, Chu, if you account for the Evian Conference of several countries that FDR called up to discuss saving the Jews that Hitler was willing to allow to leave in exchange for some badly needed cash.”

        But the failure of the world to respond at the Evian Conference (or as Addledson suggest, the failure to strongarm the UK to permitting transit to Palestine) does not equal a failure to stop the Holocaust. First, the Evian Conference occurred in 1938 and dealt with the Jews of Germany and Austria, who were, comparatively speaking, a very small number of those murdered in the Holocaust. Since the vast majority to be killed were killed in Poland and the USSR, even if FDR had done things differently at Evian or otherwise, it still wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust. Hitler still would have invaded Poland and the USSR and still would have murdered the Jews. The only thing that would have “prevented the Holocaust” is if someone had stopped Hitler from going to war or defeat him when he did.

        The real tragedy of this history is that the Holocaust didn’t have to happen. Hitler could have been stopped. The problem, though, is that when the rest of the world had the easy ability to stop him, they had no indication of the true cost of not doing it (i.e., they couldn’t see the future) so they took actions which were the right ones given the information known at the time but which proved disasterous in the full flowering of time. (Such as not opposing the remilitarization of the Rhineland. After all, was it worth potentially re-starting the Great War to prevent German soldier from being land that was undoubtedly Germany??) When they did know the true costs at stake, the cost of stopping him was exponentially larger.

        “the West’s total abandonment of the Jews in their hour of need signaled to Hitler that he was free to do with them as he pleased.”

        Hitler really didn’t think this way. He probably thought that this was a wise move on the West’s part and certainly didn’t need a “signal” from the West to tell him what he could or should do.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 5:30 am

        “First, the Evian Conference occurred in 1938 and dealt with the Jews of Germany and Austria, who were, comparatively speaking, a very small number of those murdered in the Holocaust. ”

        Woody, the Evian was not the signal that kicked off the massacres of the Jews, this had started a few years before around 1933-35 when Hitler made it clear that he wanted to purify the land of them. Over 150,000 Jews had left Germany/Austria before the Evian. Had FDR and the others attended to resolving the Jewish problem for Germany/Austria, Hitler would have gotten the message that these cared about the Jews and at worst, he could have again blackmailed them over the Jews of Poland and then those of other European countries and those would have been saved. Maybe it’s from this guilt thing that US has developed an Israel-first attitude on defense, grants, immigration and everything else under the sun. The “never-again” concept in favour of Israel appears enshrined in the American psyche. We see it repeatedly with the Germans in their dealings and generosity towards Israel. Guilt is a very powerful weapon and Israel sure knows how to use it.

        A discussion about what makes Hitler tick has to start with one on Versailles 1919.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 24, 2013, 8:37 am

        “…Hitler would have gotten the message that these cared about the Jews…”

        Walid, you are simply misunderstanding Hitler’s nature if you believed that anything done at Evian could have sent him a message that would have altered his plans in any way. His plans would not have been altered if he believed that the West cared about the Jews; he believed that the Jews ran these countries (and the Soviet Union) anyway, so he probably took it for granted that they cared about the Jews. The destruction of the Jews of Europe was part of Hitler’s larger plan for Eastern Europe. The fact that other states would have objected to this plan meant nothing to him. The “living space” he sought in the East did not mean that he saw Germany as the head of a multi-ethnic Eastern European Empire. Rather, he was going to murder tens of millions of people, push tens of millions more over beyond the Urals and resettle the area with German farmers. This (including the murder of the Jews of Europe) was planned to happen after war, after he defeated the USSR, France and the UK. When it became clear that he was losing in the USSR, the plans for the destruction of the Jews was accellerated. The point is that, specifically with regard to Evian or the opening of Palestine for Jewish settlement, such things may have saved some German and Austrian Jews, it would not have stopped the Holocaust because when Hitler had decided to kill the Jews of Europe, he had no desire to “blackmail” the Allies; he wanted to kill the Jews.

        Again, this notion that the West or FDR or whoever is responsible for not stopping the Holocaust is borne of an unhistorical view of what actually happened, what was known to the actors at the time of their decisions, what was possible. It is the fallacy of saying that because we, with the hindsight of history and the advantage of decades of scholarship, can discern a path that would have changed history, that an historial actor is to be condemned for not following that path, without regard for whether that path was reasonable or possible for that actor at that time. Which is why I brought up the remilitarization of the Rhineland before. Yes, if the Allies had went to war at that time, Hitler would have been defeated and the Holocaust would not have happened. But it is fundamentally unreasonable to fault the allies, at that time, for chosing not to go to war, so it is fundamentally immoral to blame them for no doing so.

      • tree
        October 24, 2013, 3:43 pm

        I totally agree with Woody here, and point out yet again that somewhere around 400,000 German Jews (of the approximately 600,000 total before 1933) were able to emigrate to other countries in Western Europe, North and South America, etc. Only 10 to 15% of that total went to Palestine; most did not. ( And the Zionists in Palestine had their own selection criteria, which precluded immigration of the sick, anyone who might be a burden on the state, and pretty much anyone who wasn’t properly Zionist in political persuasion.)

        link to ajcarchives.org

        While the Evian Conference, which BTW was FDR’s personal initiative, may have not resulted in any formal agreement, FDR on his own created a new US immigrant status of “refugee” which enabled the US to work around the country quotas limiting immigration and doubled the number of German Jewish refugees gaining entrance to the US in 1939. At the same time, Britain allowed more German Jewish immigrants under temporary visas for those who were on waiting lists to go to the US. FDR also created the War Refugee Board which was responsible for saving many refugees, mostly Jews, and the Board was the unit responsible for sending Raul Wallenberg (with the acquiescence of the Swedish government) to help Hungary’s Jewish victims, saving tens of thousands of them.

        Somehow providing the means for 2/3rd of Germany’s Jews to emigrate has come to be misinterpreted as “the West’s total abandonment of the Jews”, and also misinterpreted as if Jews were the only individuals who were facing death during that time. I have never heard anyone complain about “the West’s total abandonment of the Ukrainians”, who were being murdered through forced starvation by the millions in roughly the same time frame, nor the “total abandonment of the Slavs”, who were being executed in the hundreds of thousands during the Great Terror of 1938. Nor have I heard anyone complain that the West “totally abandoned the Manchurians” who were suffering under a bloody Japanese rule since 1932. In fact, though, the West did much more for Germany’s Jews than it ever did for the the Ukrainians and Slavs under Stalin or the Asians under Japanese rule. Frankly, its a false meme, meant to excuse the excesses of political Zionism and the Israeli State.

        Hitler’s plans were based on his racialist ideas of superior and inferior races, and his plans included the near total erasure of the the Slavs and Russians (as inferiors) to the East of Germany to make more room for German people and culture. It was an overly ambitious plan, a genocide “too far” for the capabilities of the German army and the Nazi State. The idea that he cared what other countries thought is to totally misinterpret Hitler’s mindset.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Even the Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer isn’t buying the Zionist meme about American inaction now, according to this article from Haaretz written by Tom Segev, Note that Segev highlights the political aspects of the meme:

        In the late 1960s, historical studies published in the United States began to condemn President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for abandoning Europe’s Jews in World War II. Similarly, the historians censured American Jewish leaders for not speaking out on behalf of their brethren during the Holocaust. The studies and declarations were a means by which the scholars, many of whom were young Jews, added their voices to those who were then lauding Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War: No longer were they little Jews ingratiating themselves before others, but proud patriots. The theory that it had been possible to save the Jews reflected, paradoxically enough, a very American optimism.

        American historiography is characterized by trends, and like historical research in Israel, it is also to a large degree tainted by politics. Promoting the assumption that the Roosevelt administration had abandoned the Jews of Europe, partly out of anti-Semitic motives, was seen as a way to serve the Zionist interest. Teddy Kollek, director general of the Prime Minister’s Office in the 1950s and ’60s, wrote in his memoirs how he pushed for publication of a book by journalist Arthur D. Morse, “While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy,” which was considered the first work to be written in that spirit.

        Furthermore, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mentioned, in a recent speech before the American Jewish lobby AIPAC, the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz, in an allusion to the Obama administration’s refusal to allow Israel to take action against Iran.

        In the 1960s, Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer was also inclined to believe that information about the murder of European Jews, made public in London by the Polish government in exile in 1942, should have been sufficient proof to the world that a holocaust was under way. Now, at age 87, the Hebrew University emeritus professor feels differently: The United States knew the real story of the Holocaust only much later, and to a lesser degree than is commonly thought, Bauer says now. There may have been some sporadic opportunities to save a few thousand Jews, but essentially, only the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany could end the annihilation of the millions.

        more at link (registration required, but not subscription)

        link to haaretz.com

        And here’s an article from 2009 from the NY Times about FDR’s efforts:

        link to nytimes.com;

        Seriously, Walid, you are accepting at face value some less than honest Zionist framing on this. I’m certainly NOT saying that Western leaders were not at fault for many immoral things, they were, but this is not one of them.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 4:18 pm

        Woody, I’m not laying all the blame for the holocaust on FDR and his allies. But I am blaming them for not having taken in those Jews that Hitler had offered. Maybe if they would have, Hitler would have taken it out on some other group and apparently he did like with the gypsies, and others. World War II and the annihilation of millions of Jews and millions of other people were not all determined by the failure of Evian. It’s being made to look like FDR, the US, the UK did absolutely nothing wrong at Evian; why did they go to Evian?

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 4:44 pm

        “Seriously, Walid, you are accepting at face value some less than honest Zionist framing on this. I’m certainly NOT saying that Western leaders were not at fault for many immoral things, they were, but this is not one of them.”

        Tree, I don’t accept much at face value from the Zionists and I’m not into blowing this issue into a big production but we keep shying away about the reason why FDR convened the meeting and we also keep shying away that of the 30 countries meeting, only the Dominican Republic took in 1000 Jews. For whatever valid or invalid reasons they refused to take in the Jews, all I’m saying is that it was a wrong call. You are saying there was nothing immoral in their rejection. I’m ill placed to pass moral judgement on this inaction, but I’m just saying it was a wrong call until someone can convince me that there was a valid reason that 29 countries would refuse to take up Hitler’s offer.

        You’re saying that the US was in the dark about the ongoing horrors; then what was all the talk about the US should have bombed the camps where the atrocities were being committed to shut down the slaughterhouses but didn’t? The Americans knew or didn’t know, but it can’t be both.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 24, 2013, 4:54 pm

        Well, you can blame the US (and remember that FDR wasn’t a dictator; he had to deal with a Congress that often pulled the country in a much more isolationist direct than FDR wanted to go in) for not taking in more Jews in the pre-war era. That’s fair. What is not fair is to say that in that failure that he “could have prevented the Holocaust” but didn’t, like Adelson said.

        “Maybe if they would have, Hitler would have taken it out on some other group and apparently he did like with the gypsies, and others.”

        This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Hitler’s mindset. The conflict between the Aryans and the Jews was, to him, foundational. It wasn’t contingent. He went after the Jews because they were Jews, not because he had a blood lust and needed a victim, any one of which would do.

        “It’s being made to look like FDR, the US, the UK did absolutely nothing wrong at Evian; why did they go to Evian?”

        I don’t think that the US, UK and the rest did nothing wrong at Evian. I’m merely suggesting that the failures at Evian have to be placed in their proper context and not blown up to suggest that a different outcome there would have had any effect on the overall happening of the Holocaust.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 24, 2013, 5:02 pm

        “You’re saying that the US was in the dark about the ongoing horrors; then what was all the talk about the US should have bombed the camps where the atrocities were being committed to shut down the slaughterhouses but didn’t? ”

        What does this have to do with the Evian conference? The Evain conference was pre-war; in 1938. The Holocaust didn’t start in earnest until after the Wannssee Conference in January 1942 (although preliminary plans were authorized in mid-1941.) Further, the notion of bombing the camps (Auschwitz, basically) did not arise until 1944.

      • tree
        October 24, 2013, 6:16 pm

        Walid, look at my link from the AJC giving statistics on the emigration of Jews from Germany and German held territory in the late 1930’s. You seem to be under the false impression that 1000 Jews going to the Dominican Republic is the sum total of Jewish emigrants from Germany. As I noted, over 400,000 emigrated from Germany during that time frame between 1933-1939. These emigrants weren’t just wandering around aimlessly in some no-man’s land. They were accepted into other countries despite the fact that the world was going through a deep depression and immigrants for the most part were at the least a potential further liability for governments which were having difficulty taking care of their own citizens at the time. That’s a very significant number, NOT “the West totally abandoning the Jews”. And you seem to think that the Evian conference was the end all and be all of efforts to help Jewish refugees. It wasn’t. Efforts started years before the conference and didn’t end until the war was over. The US administration managed to work around the 1924 Congressionally imposed immigration quotas in 1938 to allow more German Jews into the US, and Britain did likewise. And the FDR administration was able to convince other countries to do similarly, as the NY Times article points out, citing the example of the 20,000 Jewish immigrants to Bolivia.

        Maybe if they would have, Hitler would have taken it out on some other group and apparently he did like with the gypsies, and others.

        This again indicates a very simplistic understanding of Hitlers mindset. The Roma and homosexuals and the mentally or physically handicapped were not threatened because Hitler was just “looking to take it out on some…group”. He was a believer in “scientific racism” and eugenics and was looking to engineer the purity of what he considered the superior race and its dominance over those he considered inferior ones. These “inferior” races included hundreds of millions of people whom he was perfectly willing to annihilate; the majority of whom, BTW, were not Jews.

        You’re saying that the US was in the dark about the ongoing horrors; then what was all the talk about the US should have bombed the camps where the atrocities were being committed to shut down the slaughterhouses but didn’t? The Americans knew or didn’t know, but it can’t be both.

        The question is not “did they know or not know” but how much was known when, and whether anything could have been done about it outside of winning the War.

        Since you need to register to get the Haaretz article I’ll quote a bit more of Bauer from it.

        Bauer finds himself at odds not only with the historiographic establishment, but also with himself. In an article now appearing in the quarterly of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, he writes: “Had I stuck to the same positions for 44 years, after having scoured archives all over the world, learning a few languages and writing 14 books on the Holocaust – I should have been dismissed from the university. Just as every responsible historian does, I change my views in accordance with the evidence that I find.”

        The shift in Bauer’s views began to crystallize four or five years ago, he told me last week. In his article, he disagrees with an American historian named Rafael Medoff. At this stage, the difference of opinion is very specific: It is over who knew what, and when, about the Holocaust and whether, if a person had known something, he could have acted accordingly. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Bauer states that there was no possibility of saving a significant number of Jews by bringing them into the Land of Israel, because there was no way of extracting them from occupied Europe.

        Further examination led Bauer to conclude also that there was no real opportunity to destroy Nazi annihilation mechanisms by aerial bombings, except at the cost of the lives of many Jews. The Jewish Agency objected at the time to bombing Auschwitz – a detail that Netanyahu did not bother to tell the AIPAC delegates. It may have been possible to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the camps, but the Germans would have rebuilt them.

        Similarly, had the Allies bombed the gas chambers, the annihilation would have continued via other means, including the “death marches.” In this context, Bauer notes that some 50 percent of Jewish war victims were not murdered in the death camps.

        My understanding is that the debate over whether the camps should have been bombed was mostly made well after the fact, by a good ten to twenty years. What I am saying is that most of the arguments are made in hindsight, rather on the basis of what confirmed knowledge was at the time, and even so, the arguments against bombing are overwhelmingly strong.

        You might want to read Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands”. It will give you a more comprehensive view of the bloodletting caused by Stalin and Hitler. I get the feeling that you think that WWII was mostly about the Jews.

      • Chu
        October 23, 2013, 3:47 pm

        Walid,
        Yeah I remember about the Evian Conf. And even the MS St. Louis, which was another propaganda victory for Hitler to the world. I read some recently published Jewish quarterlies which say Trujillo was a good guy because he was the only one who accepted these Jews off the MS St. Louis. Not so sure about that…

        But I think Adelson is laying blame and guilt at the feet of a nation, whom at the time, wasn’t ready to be the world’s policeman. States act in their self-interest and rescuing Jews from Hitler was not the top priority for the state department. Adelson and friends can blame the Americans all they want, but they all need to stop holding grudges at everyone that has potentially wronged them over the last 2 thousand years. I think that’s what keeps the wheels turning for them and forms the tight bonds of anger toward the outsiders.

      • Bandolero
        October 23, 2013, 9:15 pm

        Walid

        Adelson is selectively remembering historic facts. He says FDR should have pressured Britain to allow jews flee to Palestine. Could FDR do it? Maybe. But what he does by this statement is turning a blind eye to the question why other places to flee for jews from the holocaust were not possible.

        Here is the catch: the zionist movements first aim was not to save jews from the Holocaust, but to build the state of Israel in Palestine. And therefore the Zionist movement tried to block efforts to save jews from the Holocaust by letting the flee to other places than Palestine, because they wanted the fleeing jews go to Palestine to strengthen the prospect of creating the state of Israel there in this way.

        Rabbi Weissmandl’s 10 questions are very explicit in this regard:

        7. IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

        8. IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation “Only to Palestine!”

        link to nkusa.org

        While I agree with Adelson that other people like FDR could and should have done more to save the jews from the holocaust, the zionist movement, to say the least, is certainly another one of the actors that could and should have done more in this regard, too, and I find it deeply hypocritical that the zionist Adelson doesn’t mention this.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 5:41 am

        Bandolero, again this comes back to the collusion of the Zionists, a taboo subject. Until this can be openly discussed, it’s bad news for anyone that insists on going there. Haavara was part of it.

      • Bandolero
        October 24, 2013, 7:06 am

        I know that discussing the historical truth surrounding the history of the zionist movement is taboo. And I think the reason for this taboo is that when truth will emerge and the zionist movement loses it’s ability to controll the narrative by the way of creating myths and taboos it will have grave consequences for Israel. I think when the zionist movement loses control on the narrative and truth emerges it would most likely leading to the transformation of the zionist apartheid state into a multi-cultural democratic state – something I believe that the zionist movement wants to avoid at all cost.

        But I would find that a good solution to the conflict in Palestine, serving all of mankind including the jewish people living in “Israel”, and therefore I dare to break the zionist taboos, to dismantle the zionist myths and to spread alternative narratives. Important truths about the history of the zionist movement are already out in the internet, and I’m convinced, when the alternative narratives seep into more peoples’ minds, the conflict can be solved by reason in a peaceful way.

      • MHughes976
        October 24, 2013, 11:39 am

        I’m not sure of the extent of my disagreement with Walid. I don’t think that Trujillo’s offer could have been as absurdly restricted as Walid suggests, partly for the reason that Walid gives – that FDR was encouraging it for his own propaganda purposes – partly for the more important reason that Trujillo’s own eugenic agenda, linked to the basic insecurity of white people in the island of Hispaniola, called for large not tiny numbers of light-skinned immigrants. It did not seem like a choice between a tropical swamp and certain death: no one foresaw the events of the war years, not the Zionists, not world governments or religious leaders, not German and Austrian Jewish people. The Kindertransport, even though it involved separation of family members, was due to get more take-up than the Dominican offer because it involved a better known and still European environment.
        The slight results of Evian do not reflect special indifference to the fate of Jewish people but the hesitation about receiving refugees that always arises. Ted Heath’s complete acceptance of the Ugandan Asians remains rather exceptional. This was one of the best things that ever happened to the UK economy but despite that sort of example existing populations always concentrate on the downside of refugee arrivals, especially on the short-term competition for jobs. In their day FDR and Neville Chamberlain had to reckon with the sentiments, which were understandable though ethically inadequate, of workers in the employment queues of Detroit and Birmingham.
        German Jews could still hope rationally in 1938 to ride out the storm. Hitler’s regime was not unshakable. There are always ethical reasons as well as selfish ones not to make life easy for the ethnic cleansers.
        I pull ‘Moses and Monotheism’ from the shelf and re-read its reference (which I slightly misquoted before, on p. 70 of the Vintage Books edition) to ‘beautiful, free, generous England': this judgement is not entirely beside the point. The ‘leaders of the free world’ of 1938 were not monsters.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 1:06 pm

        Bandolero, I agree that it should be done, but you and I wouldn’t want to have fire and brimstone raining on Mondoweiss for it.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 1:17 pm

        “The ‘leaders of the free world’ of 1938 were not monsters.”

        Oh yes they were, MHughes, they sure were. Maybe not to the extreme degree as Hitler, but they were no angels either and I won’t bore you with the litany of their misdeeds in the war, before they got into the war and after the war, suffice to recall that the birth of Israel and the extinction of Palestine was one of their less illustrious feats.

        I’m neither American nor British so I feel no compulsion to cover up the glaring crimes committed by those non-monsters.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 24, 2013, 1:27 pm

        “The ‘leaders of the free world’ of 1938 were not monsters.”

        Oh yes they were, MHughes, they sure were.

        Oh, nonsense. They were men, humans. As were Hitler and Stalin and all the rest. They did monstrous things, but never fall into the trap of believing that they were monsters. Because it blinds you to the depths to which humans — all humans, any human — can go.

      • Walid
        October 24, 2013, 4:20 pm

        Point taken and well received, Woody, they did monstrous things as you noted.

      • MHughes976
        October 24, 2013, 5:19 pm

        I agree that all of us have the capacity to act monstrously but I would draw a distinction between the Western leaders and Hitler or Stalin. I think that Tree and others here have demonstrated that difference in respect of the immediate topic, the Jewish refugees of the 30s. On the other hand, that the Balfour Declaration was disastrous and dishonest, a disgraceful thing with terrible consequences, which tainted the UK further still, I do not doubt.

  15. Susie Kneedler
    October 23, 2013, 11:32 am

    What needs attention is the refusal of Yeshiva University president Richard Joel, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to challenge Adelon’s plan for unthinkable crimes against Iran and world peace. They are, respectively, supposed educational, political, and spiritual leaders. Boteach even seems to nod approval. All three should account for their silence and implied consent to so heinous a plan.

    (OT?: Shouldn’t we also work to tax the rich, increase the minimum wage, and reform campaign-finance laws so that average citizens can counter a billionaire’s mad policy?)

    • Annie Robbins
      October 23, 2013, 12:14 pm

      the refusal of Yeshiva University president Richard Joel, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to challenge Adelon’s plan

      would they dare challenge any idea from adelson? or is he the billionaire guru?

    • Susie Kneedler
      October 23, 2013, 12:25 pm

      Sorry, sp: “Adelson’s.”

    • MHughes976
      October 23, 2013, 3:58 pm

      You sound surprised. But it is clearly the belief of the Israeli Government and its sympathisers that whatever is necessary must be done to eliminate the threat to world peace, humane values and everything that they say Iran poses. They often – well, I have read this sort of thing but can’t cite a source at the moment – that the mass of Iranians would welcome any action, however severe, as liberation from a tyranny that they hate worst of all.

  16. Ecru
    October 23, 2013, 11:36 am

    You’ve got to say this for this ugly and vile little troll – he says what every Zionist thinks. Unlike so many others he’s at least honest about being a kippah wearing Nazi.

    And those applause? I bet the crowd will be screaming “anti-semite” when somebody points out they certainly seem to have a thing for war and crimes against humanity.

    • K Renner
      October 23, 2013, 11:08 pm

      They’d accuse you of “anti Semitism” if you told them that Adelson was some kind of vile old pervert with really sick, twisted fantasies.

      To be honest, these are the sort of people who scream “anti Semitism” whenever anyone says anything at all they don’t agree with.

      Shouldn’t attack Iran? YOU’RE ALL ANTI SEMITES AND YOU WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS.

      Palestinians are human beings and have rights? YOU’RE ALL– well, you get the point.

      • Ecru
        October 25, 2013, 6:22 pm

        I think they consider everyone and everything in the entire multiverse is an antisemite until proven otherwise. That the over-riding obsession of every little goy boy and girl is the eradication of the Jews.

        10 year old Sean playing soldiers with Henry? They’re clearly rehearsing shooting Jews in the genocide to come.

        8 year old Fiona playing with her Barbies? Obviously indulging in Nazi ideas of the physical and mental superiority of the Aryan master-race.

        Honestly when Lord Cthulhu wakes up and rises from R’lyeh they’ll moan it’s antisemitic for eating them first and they’ll moan that it’s an antisemite if it eats them last. And if it randomly consumes their blasted minds in random order amongst all the goyim it’s an antisemite for doing that too.

  17. Annie Robbins
    October 23, 2013, 12:07 pm

    fantastic phil. it’s amazing the response to this insane suggestion to nuke iran’s desert. sick. how he even warrants an audience. and why nebraska? if he thinks this is such a swimming idea why not suggest israel do it from tel aviv? and boteach’s implied framing is sick…since the US didn’t stop the holocaust what do you think of obama re iran…?

    so, no word on whether ‘jews will exist’ or not eh? i’d like to wipe the words ‘exist’ and ‘existence’ out the hasbara narrative. it’s a stupid stupid ploy. as he threatens to nuke iran. the irony.

  18. Edward Q
    October 23, 2013, 12:22 pm

    This is the fellow who just participated on a panel against genocide. Having privilege means being able to define your own reality.

    • James Canning
      October 23, 2013, 3:01 pm

      And this is the fellow who want the Palestinians to “disappear”.

      • Edward Q
        October 24, 2013, 11:07 am

        That was definitely an irony-loaded panel.

  19. radii
    October 23, 2013, 1:04 pm

    no, Sheldon, Obama should fire indictments at you for your mob ties and corruption or perhaps ICE to revoke your citizenship rights since you are a traitor

  20. Dan Crowther
    October 23, 2013, 1:07 pm

    What if the collective answer from the rest of us on the question posed by the title of their talk is: Who Cares? That seems to be a big takeaway from the holocuast – it wasn’t that Europeans all became vicious antisemites, it’s that they more or less shrugged their shoulders with a collective “ehh” – shit like this from the crowd gathered in the video makes getting to “ehh” alot easier. I say this in the most friendly manner.

    • Ecru
      October 23, 2013, 1:56 pm

      I’m not sure the Europeans response to the holocaust was “ehh” more like “what are you talking about, we’ve no idea what’s going on in the camps because, in case you haven’t noticed, there’s a war on and we’re all fighting for our lives here.” As soon as the general public did know what had been going on their response was hardly “ehh” more like outright revulsion.

      Sorry but I get REALLY fed up of this eternal guilt trip over the holocaust which acts as if there was nothing else going on at the time that people had to be concerned with; concentrating solely not just on what happened in the camps but only on what happened to Jews in the camps and sod all the other victims. It’s disgusting.

      As for the response from this crowd, it was akin to that of of the crowd at a Nuremburg Rally. All it was missing was the raised arms in salute.

  21. LanceThruster
    October 23, 2013, 1:54 pm

    With genius like that, I hope he continues to able to pump unlimited cash into the US political system in order to foist upon us some like-minded leadership. /snark off

    [sigh]

  22. xanadou
    October 23, 2013, 2:04 pm

    Is there anything more pathetic than a demented senile ignoramus? (rhetorical)

    Israeli PR is extremely careful not to make announcements synonymous with genocide, their true intentions notwithstanding. Why, then, do they tolerate decrepit morons who are well-known for their unstinting, unthinking and very stinking utterances in “support” of Israel? Does Israel really need this spokesthing to add to its list of woes?

  23. James Canning
    October 23, 2013, 3:00 pm

    Wow. Adelson sure knows how to bring catastrophe to the Middle East.

    Focus should be on getting rid of Israel’s nukes.

  24. LanceThruster
    October 23, 2013, 3:57 pm

    I would love to see a piece about how many ‘degrees of separation’ would be allowed if someone made a similar statement about nuking Israel. Anyone within a couple hundred light years of such rhetoric would be an irredeemable and permanent political liability.

  25. Philip Munger
    October 23, 2013, 4:08 pm

    Population of Tehran: 8.3 million souls.

    I don’t know what is creepier – that old, disgusting man’s creepy soul uttering such horror, or the sound of those people in the crowd applauding the possibility of the death of 8.3 million people in horrible heat, flames, debris or lingering death from burns and radiation.

    I’ll post my open letter to Yeshiva University President Joel when I finish it.

    • just
      October 23, 2013, 8:57 pm

      Thank you Philip.

      • Kathleen
        October 23, 2013, 9:29 pm

        Indeed thank you Phil. Disgusting…horrendous. Can you imagine how this would be slammed on our MSM if an individual in Iran with this much influence said this about Israel in a public forum and people applauded. Rachel Maddow etc would be all over that story

        Racism totally accepted by that group of individuals. So telling

  26. Philip Munger
    October 23, 2013, 4:58 pm

    Here’s the letter I have sent to Yeshiva University President, Richard M. Joel:

    Mr. Richard M. Joel, JD
    President, Yeshiva University
    500 West 185th Street, Belfer Hall 1200
New York, NY 10033

    Dear President Joel,

    I have just finished watching a video segment posted on Youtube of part of a seminar in which you participated Tuesday evening, at Yeshiva University. One moment bothered me to the point I find myself distressed.

    One of the participants in the event was Sheldon Adelson. He made the following statement (emphasis added):

    Boteach: So you would support negotiations with Iran so long as they first cease all enrichment

    Adelson: No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ You pick up your cell phone, even at traveling rates. You pick up your cell phone, and– what are they called?

    Boteach: roaming charges.

    Adelson: Roaming charges. You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ So there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.

    And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

    [Applause]

    I am appalled that you so willingly sat there mutely as Mr. Adelson’s horrific statement and proposal, which would kill millions of people, was applauded so enthusiastically by students and guests at your institution.

    I called your office today, Wednesday, October 23, to ask whether you had issued any sort of statement distancing yourself from Mr. Adelson’s suggestion of a horrific act of war against a sovereign nation with which we are currently negotiating. I was told you have not issued any such statement.

    I am asking you to make such a statement soon, sir.

    Very Truly Yours,

    Philip Munger

    I was actually physically shaking after watching the audience applaud Adelson’s threat to kill millions. Haven’t been this angry in a while. Calming down, though.

    • LanceThruster
      October 23, 2013, 5:21 pm

      Very powerful letter, Mr. Munger.

      Thank you for writing it.

      It is truly remarkable the reaction such violent rhetoric gets (at least I hope it’s only rhetoric).

      • Kathleen
        October 23, 2013, 9:31 pm

        I will be following Phil’s lead

    • Citizen
      October 23, 2013, 5:21 pm

      Philip, let us know the response you get, if any.

      • Philip Munger
        October 23, 2013, 5:58 pm

        I will.

        Phil Weiss’ video has made impressions at Time Magazine’s web site, HuffPo, the Washington Post and elsewhere. That sort of surprises me.

        link to swampland.time.com

        link to huffingtonpost.com

        link to washingtonpost.com

      • Eva Smagacz
        October 24, 2013, 5:25 am

        I read many comments in huffingtonpost and was struck how very few ( virtually none) commenters made a connection between Adelson and Israel.

        Plenty of comments about his age, hair, casinos and influence on GOP, but nothing about links to Netanyahu government.

        I made several comments, and all comments with anything relating to Israel went to moderation. All comment without the alarming words (like Israel, IDF, Netanyahu) were allowed to stand.

      • Philip Munger
        October 24, 2013, 11:32 am

        Interesting – about words that get you put into the penalty box there.

        I posted a diary about my letter at firedoglake yesterday:

        link to my.firedoglake.com

        Just got up, up here in Alaska. No response letter from Pres. Amos. Yet. He’s quite busy, I’m sure.

    • ToivoS
      October 23, 2013, 5:21 pm

      This incident is one that left me speechless. I had no idea that things had gotten so bad. We have heard for years about the Samon option and that Zionists might go nuclear if they don’t get their way. At some level this was hard to take seriously and saw it mostly as bluff and juvenile bravado.

      What is most disturbing is the applause — this means the nuclear option is not just in the minds of a few deranged individuals like Adelson but is held by an entire community that shares views with the ruling parties in Israel. Scary indeed. I do hope that people from that community are not allowed to work around the American nuclear weapons program.

      • lysias
        October 23, 2013, 5:49 pm

        The state that Max Blumenthal describes in Goliath is not a sane state. Certainly not a state that should be allowed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

    • LanceThruster
      October 23, 2013, 7:16 pm

      In re-reading this, it’s interesting how Nebraska (courtesy of Uncle Sugar) gets to do the dirty work. Heaven forbid Israel even has to use one of its own nukes.

      This is the scenario of the bully with the bully big brother (though I think it’s the tail wagging the dog more often than not).

      [face palm]

      • RoHa
        October 23, 2013, 10:59 pm

        What else is Nebraska for?

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 24, 2013, 7:54 pm

        RE: “This is the scenario of the bully with the bully big brother” ~ LanceThruster

        OR AS I PREFER TO SAY: The Great Sadist and The Little Sadist!

      • LanceThruster
        October 25, 2013, 12:08 pm

        Well put.

    • Susie Kneedler
      October 24, 2013, 4:29 pm

      Thanks, Philip, for writing so eloquently to Prof. Joel. I emailed him, too, after I commented here, but didn’t make time to proofread. So I had to fix the typos then mail. Here’s what I sent :

      Richard M. Joel
      President and Bravmann Family University Professor
      Yeshiva University….

      Dear Professor Joel,

      I write to express my great concern. You and Yeshiva University hosted a discussion last night at which Sheldon Adelson urged that the United States government attack Iran with a nuclear bomb (despite the fact that Iran has not been proven to be building nuclear weapons ). You do not appear to have objected to this crime against International Law. Meanwhile, many in the audience applauded.

      I posted this response to Philip Weiss’s report link to mondoweiss.net:

      “What needs attention is the refusal of Yeshiva University president Richard Joel, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to challenge Adelson’s plan for unthinkable crimes against Iran and world peace. They are, respectively, supposed educational, political, and spiritual leaders. Boteach even seems to nod approval. All three should account for their silence and implied consent to so heinous a plan.”

      I ask you now to explain your apparent acquiescence to an illegal nuclear first strike by the U. S. government. I do not question Sheldon Adelson’s right to free speech, or your own. But the public deserves to know whether this dialogue represents Yeshiva University’s official policy. At the least, your muteness appears to conflict with your own pledge that:
      “At Yeshiva University we are dedicated to offering a first-class education and an unparalleled experience that is affordable and can be found nowhere but here.
      Throughout their experience at our 20 undergraduate, graduate and professional schools and affiliates, our students are inspired and inspire others. Their charge is, together with their unmatched network of peers, to take their sense of humanity and bring it to bear on how they build their future of success.”
      link to yu.edu

      Please clarify your tacit assent last night to the unprovoked nuclear bombing of Iran and how it “inspires” “students” according to your “sense of humanity,” or the University’s ethos. Or, rather, I hope you will “support” the “negotiations” that Adelson scorned. Please remember that studying the many ways to make peace takes students out of prejudice to discovery, to ever-greater questioning and deeper learning. The give-and-take that Adelson condemned actually opens up the possibility of the “first-class education” you offer, and–better still–teaches more-truly inspiring intellectual, civic, legal, spiritual, and moral values.

      For your ease, I enclose Weiss’s summary:
      Adelson says Obama should fire ‘atomic weapon’ at Iran, not negotiate….
      [Phil Weiss's whole article]

      Professor Joel, please reassure the public that you and Yeshiva University do not endorse nuclear war by the United States on a country that has not attacked us, an aggression that would violate all law and morality. Thank you very much.

      Sincerely,

      Susie Kneedler

  27. just
    October 23, 2013, 6:27 pm

    A truly despicable Zionist. I guess he’s following his true leader in Israel, not our President in America.

    “ROME (AP) — Israel’s prime minister said Wednesday that the world should not accept what he called a “partial deal” to curb Iran’s nuclear program — just as it is not allowing the Syrian government to keep any of its chemical weapons stockpile.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told America’s chief diplomat that ongoing negotiations with Iran should insist that Tehran end all enrichment on uranium, get rid of any fissile material and close water plants and underground bunkers that he said are only necessary to build a nuclear bomb.

    “I think a partial deal that leaves Iran with these capabilities is a bad deal,” Netanyahu told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at the start of what was expected to be a daylong private meeting in Rome.

    “You wisely insisted there wouldn’t be a partial deal with Syria,” Netanyahu said. “You were right. If (Syrian President Bashar) Assad had said, ‘I’d like to keep 20 percent, 50 percent, or 80 percent of my chemical weapons capability,’ you would have refused — and correctly so.””

    link to npr.org

    They want dead people. They want us to kill them for them. They want genocide on a massive scale. They tell us what to do for them, in the unholy name of Zionism. They won’t declare their own damnable WMDs nor follow any international law.

    Sick, horrible non- humans.

  28. just
    October 23, 2013, 6:55 pm

    Wonder how many students applauded wildly for his genocidal call to murder millions of people not only in Iran but in surrounding countries– you know, depending on which way the wind blows?

    He should be jailed for his incitement to murder millions of innocents…

    It’s not free speech; it’s the same as yelling fire in a crowded auditorium…… only it’s much, much worse.

    I, too, am shaking with rage. And yes, it is an attempt to undermine our own government. Simply put, it is traitorous.
    If not now, when will the Administration just stop enabling these insane people?

    • yonah fredman
      October 23, 2013, 11:07 pm

      no, just-
      It is free speech protected by the constitution. It is not yelling fire in a crowded auditorium, it is not treason.

      These are the words of a very rich old man.

      The only reason he gets to go on the stage is because he is rich. I wish y.u. would not depend on the largesse of unhinged strangers to keep afloat and it seems clear to me that it was adelson’s money and nothing else that led to this forum.

      • K Renner
        October 24, 2013, 3:38 am

        >> It is free speech protected by the constitution. It is not yelling fire in a crowded auditorium, it is not treason.

        It’s funny how stuff like this putrid garbage is acceptable because freedom of speech but if someone says that Israel needs to have its aid money cut off or that Israel lies about the Palestinians then it’s obviously hate speech and all the usual suspects go on hysterical witch hunt to find and deal with the supposed “anti semites”. All the while chanting ridiculous pro-Israel slogans, of course.

        >> The only reason he gets to go on the stage is because he is rich. I wish y.u. would not depend on the largesse of unhinged strangers to keep afloat and it seems clear to me that it was adelson’s money and nothing else that led to this forum.

        Are you going to say that Adelson paid people in the audience to seemingly agree enthusiastically with everything he said?

        Go on, say it.

  29. DICKERSON3870
    October 23, 2013, 6:58 pm

    RE: “Last night in New York, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire supporter of Israel, said that the U.S. should fire a nuclear weapon at Iran rather than negotiate.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: My goodness, there is certainly something really “dark and sticky” inside Sheldon Adelson’s brain/mind (“all the time getting strong”) ! ! ! Unfortunately, Adelson can’t bring himself to dig in the dirt to find and open up the places where he got hurt.

    AN EARLY AUTUMN EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, proudly brought to you by the makers of the new Über-Xtreme Ziocaine Ultra CR (Controlled Release) Transdermal Patch®: Let The Good Times Roll!™

    Something in me, dark and sticky
    All the time it’s getting strong
    No way of dealing with this feeling
    Can’t go on like this too long

    [Chorus]
    This time you’ve gone too far [x3]
    I told you [x4]
    This time you’ve gone too far [x3]
    I told you [x4]

    Don’t talk back
    Just drive the car
    Shut your mouth
    I know what you are
    Don’t say nothing
    Keep your hands on the wheel
    Don’t turn around
    This is for real
    Digging in the dirt
    Stay with me, I need support
    I’m digging in the dirt
    To find the places I got hurt
    Open up the places I got hurt . . .
    ~ Peter Gabriel, 1992

    Peter Gabriel: Digging In The Dirt [VIDEO, 05:30] – link to youtube.com

    P.S. The Ziocaine concept was first used on Mondoweiss by “Mooser”.

    • DICKERSON3870
      October 23, 2013, 9:31 pm

      P.P.S. RE: “My goodness, there is certainly something really ‘dark and sticky’ inside Sheldon Adelson’s brain/mind (‘all the time getting strong’) ! ! ! Unfortunately, Adelson can’t bring himself to dig in the dirt to find and open up the places where he got hurt.” – me (from above)

      SEE: “Washington Post front page: Adelson demanded that Romney ‘join him in steadfast support of Israel’”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 10/24/12

      [EXCERPTS] On its front page today, the ‘Washington Post’ has a personality profile of Sheldon Adelson . . .
      . . . There’s a lot in this piece about motivation, and ethnic resentment, and Israel being at the heart of that motivation . . .
      . . . And Fisher links it with generational Jewish identity issues, involving the Holocaust and anti-Semitism in the U.S.:
      As World War II raged across the ocean, in a neighborhood of south Boston that was home to more Jews than any American city outside New York, kids like Sheldon Adelson learned that being a Jew in America both put a target on their backs and gave them a blessed refuge.
      Like other Jewish teens in Dorchester, young Sheldon was occasionally beaten up by Irish kids full of anti-Semitic vinegar . . .

      SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net

  30. Kathleen
    October 23, 2013, 7:08 pm

    Adelson refers to “Palestine” at least three times in the first five minutes of that clip. How many times have we heard Palestine never existed.

    If any Iranian citizen with that kind of influence said what he said about wiping Iran or Tehran off the map it would be all over the MSM.

    What a racist, violent, manipulative little thug Adelson is. Of course not one person mentions that Iran as a signatory to the NPT has the right to enrich uranium up to 20% for peaceful purposes and Israel refuses to sign the NPT and sits on a massive stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

  31. talknic
    October 23, 2013, 7:52 pm

    Sick bucket anyone. The panel is quite deranged

    • just
      October 23, 2013, 8:09 pm

      Mine’s nearly full for the umpteenth time– this time it overflowed.

      Thanks, though.

  32. just
    October 23, 2013, 8:26 pm

    So we glad- hand Israel to the tune of billions (in spite of their flagrant disregard for law), they demand and get face time from nearly all of our politicians and Administration, instigate wars fought by us, all the while dropping our taxpayers monies back into the coffers of the “selected” leaders in the US @ every election, disparaging the UN and counting on the eternal veto they bought…

    Have I got it right yet? Or is this just a little tip of the iceberg?

  33. piotr
    October 23, 2013, 9:36 pm

    Hufington Post: Adelson, the largest donor to the Republican Party and its affiliated groups, made the comments during a panel discussion hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens and Yeshiva University President Richard Joel. Adelson’s remarks were videotaped by Philip Weiss of the news site Mondoweiss:

    Congrats to Phil for the scoop cited in Huffington Post, Washington Post, Time magazine blog etc. Boteach and Adelson are private citizens, but Stephens and Joel have public positions that have some expectations of merit. By not opposing something so outrageously insane when spoken in a panel in which they were expected to voice opinions reflecting their merits they simply flunked. WSJ and YU are supposedly serious institutions.

    • just
      October 23, 2013, 9:50 pm

      Boteach and Adelson are ‘private citizens’ cloaked in worse than “wolves clothing”.

      (apologies to real wolves everywhere). And we pay them for their genocidal, maniacal, fanatical rants, to boot.

      A real shill game.

      • piotr
        October 23, 2013, 9:57 pm

        You cannot reasonably demand Boteach and Adelson to be fired*. But a college president can and should. This is a free country and until a legally appointed panel finds you dangerous to yourself and others you are free to roam and rant.

        ——
        * Well, we can also boycott some ministries and casinos, I just cancel my travel plans to Macao.

  34. piotr
    October 23, 2013, 9:52 pm

    I would like to stress that what Adelson said is stupid and immoral far beyond normal comprehension. For example, an American ISBM send to Eurasia may trigger Russian retaliation. Say, dust settles and there is a large crater in the middle of an Iranian desert and Diego Garcia is a flattened irradiated island devoid of any life and a FORMER location of the most important American logistic base in Indian Ocean. What next?

    You can roll it back a bit, say that nuking a desert was a mere figure of speech and it still remain batshit insane. By the way, was it Boteach voice that actually egged Adelson on?

    • just
      October 23, 2013, 10:07 pm

      Boteach is a regular thug dressed in Rabbi’s clothing.

      (PS– look at the knucklehead @ the start whose fingers cannot be stilled until he tucked them under his armpits!)

      geez– is he the uncomfortable hired bodyguard (missing his guns) a la Adelson and Yeshiva or what?

  35. Woody Tanaka
    October 24, 2013, 8:04 am

    I think that this was Addeledson and Mr. Boteach trying to push the “Overton Window” that the conservatives talk about, over toward the side of murdering Iranians for israel. By recommending a nuke, then a attack with conventional weapons seems so much more reasonable.

    • Donald
      October 24, 2013, 12:24 pm

      “trying to push the “Overton Window” that the conservatives talk about, over toward the side of murdering Iranians for israel. By recommending a nuke, then a attack with conventional weapons seems so much more reasonable.”

      The Overton Window is a political science concept, I think. Chomsky and other left media critics talk about it without using the term–it’s the frame in which the supposedly rational middle operates. And you’re at least partly right–whether Adelson did this with that idea in mind, the effect of having extremists push extremely stupid or immoral policies is to make slightly less extreme and immoral policies seem more sane. The Tea Party has the same effect on domestic issues. The center just keeps shifting to the center-right, which then becomes the center, and is then considered too liberal…

Leave a Reply